Texts of pending comments

Prospect of ratification of the most up-to-date Convention. The Committee takes note of the indication that the Government will continue to keep under review the opportunity to consider the ratification of the Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152). The Committee invites the Government to provide information on any developments towards the possible ratification of Convention No. 152.

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) received on 30 August 2021 and the Government’s reply.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Assessing and addressing the gender pay gap. The Committee asked the Government to provide: (1) detailed information on the evolution of the gender pay gap and the measures adopted to address its underlying causes; and (2) statistics on the prevalence of overtime, disaggregated by sex and sector of employment. In its report, the Government refers to the data published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in the 2020 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) and indicates that the gender pay gap among all employees has decreased from 17.4 per cent in 2019 to 15.5 per cent in 2020, being the lowest recorded measurement since the survey began in 1997. The gender pay gap for full-time employees has decreased from 9 per cent in 2019 to 7.4 per cent in 2020 and the gender pay gap for part time employees to minus 2.9 per cent. The part-time gender pay gap for part-time workers is therefore in favour of women. The Committee notes that, according to the ASHE, the widest pay gaps are found in the following occupations: precision instrument makers and repairers (46 per cent), production managers and directors in mining and energy (38 per cent), IT engineers (36 per cent), financial institution managers and directors (34 per cent), electronical and electronics technicians (31 per cent), health associate professionals (31 per cent), functional and financial managers and directors (30 per cent). The survey also indicates that the difference in pay is largest among higher earners, showing that the 90-percentile male employee (who earns more than 90 per cent of other men employees, but less than ten per cent) earns substantially more than the equivalent women employee. The Committee notes however that the figures presented in the ASHE exclude overtime from the calculations.

For Northern Ireland specifically, the Government provides the results of the 2020 Northern Ireland ASHE, with detailed statistics on the gender pay gap in the region. Pursuant to the survey, 2020 is the 11th consecutive year where full-time female employees in Northern Ireland earned at least as much as full-time males on average (46p more per hour). It is the only region where the gender pay gap for full-time employees is in favour of women. Considering all employees, the median female employees’ hourly rate is £1.01 lower than the median male employees’ hourly rate. The Committee also notes that the figures presented in the Northern Ireland ASHE do not consider overtime.

On the measures adopted, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a significant cause of pay gaps is occupational segregation and it is therefore introducing a number of initiatives to make it easier for women to access high-paid jobs in all sectors, through the adoption of support programmes to this aim, such as specific protections for female-led-start-ups and new childcare support. The Government is also raising awareness on the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) careers, through programmes such as “STEM ambassadors”, 45 per cent of whom are women. It is also funding a programme to support computer science teaching that includes a Gender Balance in Computing programme which aims to identify interventions that schools can implement to improve girls’ participation in computing. The Government is also encouraging employers to offer initiatives such as flexible working and returners programmes which can improve prospects for both women and men. Noting this information, the Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed statistics on the evolution of the gender pay gap and information on the nature and the impact of the measures adopted to reduce such gap. In this regard, the Committee also refers to its comments on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) regarding equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women. Noting that the ASHE and the Northern Ireland ASHE do not consider overtime in the calculation of men and women’s respective hourly rates, the Committee asks once again the Government to collect and provide statistics on the prevalence of overtime, disaggregated by sex and sector of employment.

Pay inequalities. Private and public sectors. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the gender pay gap reporting and its impact in reducing gender pay inequalities in the private sector as well as any measures taken to promote the principle of the Convention. The Government explains that the Gender Pay Gap Regulations 2017 apply in Great Britain to all employers with 250 or more employees and require them to publish and report to the Government on the gender pay gap. The Government stresses that, following the introduction of this obligation, over 10,500 employers report annually on the gender pay gap, bringing much greater transparency and prompting national awareness on the matter. The reporting programme has been extremely successful with 100 per cent compliance during the first two years of reporting. However, the Committee notes that, due to the COVD-19 outbreak in 2020 and the associated impacts on the workforce, the Government Equality Office (GEO) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHCR) decided to suspend the reporting obligation on the gender pay gap for 2020. For 2021, it decided that employers would have an additional six months to report. The Government further indicates that to support employers, it has published advice on how to diagnose their pay gap and develop an action plan, alongside evidence-based guidance on practical actions to close the gap. With regard to Northern Ireland, section 19 of the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, gave powers to the Department for Employment and Learning to establish a mandatory system for employers to report gender pay gap information. The Government indicates that this section has yet to be implemented due to a combination of two factors: the lack of an executive in Northern Ireland from January 2017 to January 2019 and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Government assures that the Executive of Northern Ireland remains committed to the implementation of section 19 of the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, in the context of the development of a new Gender Equality Strategy which is due to be published, after the approval of the Executive of Northern Ireland, in December 2021.

Further to the Committee’s request concerning the implementation of the reporting obligation on the gender pay gap, the Government indicates that in England, the regulations which apply to public bodies are the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties and Public Authorities) Regulations 2017. These impose reporting obligations in relation to the gender pay gap. Public bodies in Scotland and Wales are covered by separate regulations. It adds that very high levels of compliance in the public sector were seen during the first two years of mandatory gender pay gap reporting (96 per cent and 94 per cent respectively by the deadline, eventually rising at 100 per cent compliance). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the reporting obligation was suspended for 2020 and additional time was granted in 2021 for public bodies. The Government further indicates that all ministerial departments have published their action plans for reducing their gender pay gap, alongside the publication of their figures.

In its observations, the TUC indicates that there has been no progress concerning the issues raised in its previous observations regarding the low thresholds and lack of enforcement of reporting obligations on gender pay gaps. The TUC also expresses concern over the decision of the Government to push back the reporting deadline during the pandemic. For the TUC, this decision is part of a wider failure in the Government’s COVID-19 response to properly consider the impact of policy decisions on women. Specifically, the TUC is concerned that the Government is failing: (1) in its legal responsibilities, under the public sector equality duty, to ensure that its policies do not disadvantage or discriminate against women; (2) to carry out equality impact assessments on key policy decisions and to take into account the disproportionate impact of self-isolation on women, as fewer of them are eligible for statutory sick pay; and (3) to take into account the additional caring responsibilities placed on women as a result of health restrictions and policies on schools and childcare facilities closures. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its reply to the TUC’s observations, that the statutory review of the gender pay gap reporting regulations will be completed by Spring next year. The Government adds that pay gap reporting: (1) is being used as a proxy measure to enable employees and employers to assess whether the pay is fair; and (2) increases internal transparency about pay, and how pay decisions are made. However, the Government stresses that, being hugely reliant on the quality and breadth of diversity data collected by organizations, pay gap information is seen as just one of a range of metrics that employers can use, and that the most meaningful metrics to indicate fairness will differ depending on the size, nature and location of the organization. Regarding the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Government indicates that it is taking a number of steps to drive effective action, through the Equality Hub that coordinates a working group promoting compliance and sharing expertise, resources and best practice and that provides advice. The Government recalls that the legal requirement in the Equality Act is simply to have “due regard” to the matters set out in the Public Sector Equality Duty and that no specific action is prescribed to demonstrate that “due regard” has been had, though the courts have made it clear that recording the steps taken by the decision maker in seeking to meet the duty is an important evidential element in demonstrating legal compliance and that a systematic approach is good practice. With respect to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on equality, the Government states that it has offered an unprecedented level of support to both individuals and businesses during this pandemic, such as the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS), and carefully considered the equality impact of both individual measures and fiscal events on those sharing protected characteristics, including gender. With regard to the evaluation of Shared Parental Leave and Pay, the Government adds that: (1) the fieldwork for much of the research was completed in February 2020; (2) the data are currently being processed; and (3) analysis of this data which will be published, has taken longer than expected due to the impact of COVID-19. The Committee notes this information. In this regard, the Committee stresses the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on the employment situation of women: in most countries, they have suffered greater rates of job loss generally and face significantly higher rates of unemployment than men. Moreover, women are over-represented in high-risk sectors, such as in care work, where demand for their services has increased due to the pandemic. As a result, they have been required to work excessive hours while also continuing to shoulder the primary burden of unpaid care work (General report of the Committee of Experts, adopted in 2020, paragraph 45). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the measures adopted to address and raise awareness on pay inequality in the private sector. The Committee also asks the Government to provide detailed information on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to comparative rates of job loss among women and men; comparative rates of unemployment; the income of women and comparative work force participation in specific high-risk employment sectors where demand for services has led to required excess hours worked, and to provide information on whether the gender pay gap has widened because of the pandemic. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the findings of the evaluation of Shared Parental Leave and Pay. It also asks the Government to provide information on the main causes of gender pay gaps identified in the public sector and the results of the action plans adopted to reduce these gaps. The Committee also asks the Government to provide specific statistical data on pay levels in the public sector, disaggregated by sex and occupations.

Article 3. Pay audits. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on any case of application of the provisions of section 139A of the Equality Act 2010 and of the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014 on the possibility for an employment tribunal to order the employer to carry out an equal pay audit. The Government indicates that it is not aware of whether or not these provisions have been used, as most cases do not result in a judgment, either because they are settled outside courts or withdrawn. Recalling that equal plan audits are an important means of promoting and ensuring the implementation of the principle of the Convention, the Committee again asks the Government to indicate in some detail whether and how these tools are being used by the Employment Tribunals.

Articles 2(2)(c) and 4. Collective agreements. Cooperation with social partners. The Committee has repeatedly asked for information on any cooperation initiatives with social partners as well as any collective agreement that includes equal pay issues or promotes the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value. The Government indicates that it has supported the business-led and voluntary Hampton-Alexander review published in February 2021 into increasing the number of women in senior positions in the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 companies. It also refers to the Sector Deals that are partnerships between the government and industries on sector-specific issues and indicates that a number of sector deals include ambitious commitments to increase the proportion of women. The Government further indicates that it met with the TUC to discuss gender equality legislation, evidence-based actions for employers and the TUC’s actions on gender diversity. The Committee recalls the importance of ensuring that the provisions of collective agreements do not result in indirect wage discrimination against women and that introducing equal pay clauses in collective agreements can be an efficient step to addressing the issue, (General survey of 2012, paras. 694 and 729). While taking note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate whether and how collective agreements take into account the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value (such as through the introduction of objective job evaluation methods in the agreements, or the inclusion of equal pay clauses). It further asks the Government to continue to provide information on the manner in which it cooperates with workers’ and employers’ organizations to give effect to the principle of the Convention.

Enforcement. The Committee had asked the Government to provide information on any new development regarding the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 that had been quashed by the Supreme Court. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indications that the Ministry of Justice has frequent discussions with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on many aspects of Employment Tribunals and that no final decision has been made regarding the re-introduction of fees, on which any formal proposal would be subject to a public consultation process. Furthermore, as stated above, the Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that most cases do not result in a judgment, either because they are settled out of courts or withdrawn. The Committee stresses that the judicial process of individual complaints to courts or labour tribunals, including providing appropriate remedies and imposing sanctions, is an important feature of the enforcement of the Convention and that courts and tribunals have a crucial role in developing jurisprudence furthering the principles of the Convention, and in providing remedies including orders for equal remuneration, compensation, and reinstatement (see 2012 General Survey, paragraph 883). The Committee therefore asks the Government to adopt measures to ensure the efficiency of the remedies available, both in the private and public sector, before the Employment Tribunals and to provide detailed information on the number of complaints brought in relation to equal pay, as well as on the outcome of these cases (including on the number of settlements, number of withdrawals or dismissals, sanctions imposed and compensation granted).

The Committee requested the Government to provide its comments in relation to the observations submitted by the Trade Union Congress (TUC) and its affiliate Nautilus International concerning the importance of ratifying the Seafarers’ Identity Documents Convention (Revised), 2003, as amended (No. 185). The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its report, that (1) in 2019, it carried out an initial engagement with stakeholders on the possible ratification of Convention No. 185, including the UK Chamber of Shipping, representing shipowners, and Nautilus International and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, representing seafarers; (2) the responses from these three organisations gave clear support to the ratification; (3) the ratification would also create the opportunity to extend the eligibility for a UK seafarer identity document to fishers who are not eligible under the UK’s implementing legislation for Convention No. 108; (4) it has declared its intention to work over the next five years towards the ratification of Convention No. 185 in “Maritime 2050: Navigating the future”, a statement of the Government’s vision for the maritime sector published in January 2019; and (5) while the intention to make progress towards the ratification has been hindered most recently by the need to dedicate resources to addressing COVID-19 related issues, it is now fully engaged in the process.

The Committee recalls that, in the framework of the Standards Review Mechanism, the ILO Governing Body, as recommended by the Special Tripartite Committee on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006), classified Convention No. 108 as “outdated”. At its 343rd Session (November 2021), the Governing Body requested the Office to encourage Member States that are still bound by Convention No. 108 to ratify Convention No. 185. In this context, the Committee welcomes the intention of the Government, supported by social partners, to ratify Convention No. 185 and encourages it to examine the possibility to extend its application to the non-metropolitan territories still bound by Convention No. 108.

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) received on 30 August 2021 and communicated to the Government.

Article 1(1) of the Convention. Discrimination based on sex and disability. Sexual harassment against women workers with disabilities and against lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) workers. The Committee takes note of the observations of the TUC on the results of its survey “Sexual harassment of disabled women in the workplace”, showing that: (1) 7 out of 10 disabled women respondents reported having been sexually harassed at work as compared to 52 per cent of women in general; (2) disabled women experience higher levels of every type of sexually harassing behaviour reflecting the imbalance of power disabled women encounter at work and in wider society; and (3) 54 per cent of disabled women respondents reported having experienced two or more types of sexually harassing behaviours, and 45 per cent three or more types. The Committee also takes note of the observations of the TUC on the research it conducted on sexual harassment at work against LGBT workers, which showed that 68 per cent of the respondents reported being sexually harassed at work and two thirds did not report this harassment to their employer. One in four were prevented from raising the issue by their fear of being “outed” at work. The Government states that it is committed to strengthening the protection against sexual harassment in the workplace by introducing a new proactive duty on employers requiring them to take all reasonable steps to prevent their employees from experiencing sexual harassment; introducing explicit protections for employees from harassment by third parties, for example customers or clients; supporting the Equality and Human Rights Commission to produce a statutory code of practice on this issue, to raise awareness to ensure that employers are clear on their responsibilities, and looking closely at extending the time limit for bringing Equality Act based claims to a tribunal to six months. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any steps taken to address the concerns raised by the TUC with regard to the higher levels of sexual harassment against workers with disabilities and LGBT workers, and any measures adopted to prevent such harassment in employment and occupation. The Committee requests the Government, in particular, to provide information on the introduction of the proposed new protections on sexual harassment, including the date of their implementation and their impact.

Article 2. Equality of opportunity and treatment for workers with disabilities. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that it published the National Disability Strategy in July 2021, setting out its vision to improve the lives of people with disabilities. According to the strategy, the disability employment gap has narrowed significantly in recent years, from 33.8 percentage points in 2014 to 28.6 percentage points in 2021. This employment gap decreases as the level of qualification increases – down to 15.2 percentage points for people with a degree. The Government acknowledges that despite this progress, too many workers with disabilities still find themselves excluded from the job market. The COVID-19 pandemic has also had a negative impact on their employment situation as workers with disabilities are likely to have experienced a reduction in earnings through redundancy, a reduction in hours or being furloughed. The Committee notes the detailed data provided by the Government on the situation of persons with disabilities in the country, in particular that around one out of five persons with disabilities hold a degree level qualification, compared to a third of non-disabled people and that persons with disabilities are nearly three times more likely not to have any qualifications. The Committee notes that the National Disability Strategy provides for the adoption of a series of measures to improve access to work of workers with disabilities, including: encouraging employers to recruit; retain and promote employees with disabilities and create inclusive workplaces; scaling up supported employment services; strengthening rights in the workplace; encouraging flexible working hours and introducing carers leave; and improving access to advice on employment rights. The Government also provides detailed information on a series of programmes established to support the employment of workers with disabilities, including the Work Choice programme, the Work and Health Programme (WHP), the Specialist Employability Support (SES), the Small Employer Offer (SEO), the Access to Work (AtW), the Disability Confident Employer Scheme, and the programme on Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND). In this regard, the Committee takes note of the TUC’s observations that the COVID-19 pandemic had exacerbated the barriers faced by workers with disabilities. The TUC stresses that many of them have not shared their conditions or impairments with their employers, believing that it would lead to negative consequences and that major difficulties for accessing to reasonable adjustments continued during the pandemic. The Committee notes the Government’s response to the comments of the TUC that though the pandemic did initially reverse the positive trends showing a fall in the disability employment rates and a widening of the disability employment gap between April and December 2020, the disability employment rate returned to its pre-pandemic level in spring 2021 with the disability employment gap also narrowing throughout the first six months of 2021. The Government states that this suggests that, after some initial impacts, there are encouraging signs of recovery and, overall, currently no disproportionate impact on the number and rate of disabled people in employment as a result of the pandemic. Further, the Government states that there is a duty on employers under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments and the Access to Work Scheme can fund support tailored to an individual’s needs for these purposes. Furthermore, the Government states that the new Access to Work Adjustments Passport is being piloted and this will capture in work support needs enabling the passport holder to have informed conversations with a potential employer and will provide greater flexibility for people with disabilities to move between jobs. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the National Disability Strategy in practice to promote the employment of persons with disabilities and their access to various occupations, and its impact on the access of workers with disabilities to employment, including detailed statistical data. It also requests the Government to provide specific information on the type of reasonable accommodation measures adopted in favour of workers with disabilities. The Committee further requests the Government to continue to provide specific information on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the employment of workers with disabilities, and the measures taken to mitigate such impact. The Committee lastly requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the Access to Work Adjustments Passport pilot.

Equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women. The Committee previously requested the Government to continue to provide information on: (1) the results of the measures adopted to address occupational sex segregation and to promote the participation of women in a wide variety of jobs; and (2) the impact of the measures adopted regarding childcare support, shared parental leave and flexible working arrangements on the participation of women in full-time and part-time employment. On the results obtained to address occupational segregation, the Committee takes note of the indications by the Government that: in January 2021, women represented 34.3 per cent of the boards of the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 companies, up from 24.5 per cent in October 2017; there were no all-male boards in the FTSE 350, this fell from 8 in 2017; the number of boards with only one women fell from 116 in 2015 to 16; in October 2021, in the FTSE 350, women made up 29.4 per cent of senior leadership roles (defined as the combination of the Executive Committee and their direct reports), up from 24.5 per cent in 2017. The Government also reports that it is continuing its work to increase the number of girls taking STEM subjects at school, with several funding programmes to increase the take-up of these subjects. There was a 31 per cent increase in girls’ entries to STEM A levels in England between 2010 and 2019. Over the same period, the number of women accepted onto full-time STEM undergraduate courses increased by 34 percent. Girls remain under-represented in apprenticeships in STEM, but their representation in STEM apprenticeships is increasing.

On the impact of the shared parental leave scheme, the Government indicates that in the 2019–20 tax year, 13,000 individuals claimed shared parental pay, of which 10,200 were male employees and 2,900 were female employees. The number of individual claims for shared parental leave had quadrupled between the 2014–15 and the 2019–20 tax years. The Committee takes note of the Government’s response to the TUC’s comments that that while the Government is currently evaluating the scheme, the analysis of the data has taken longer than expected because of the need to prioritize immediate support to parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government states that they will publish their findings, alongside the Government’s Response to a 2019 consultation in due course. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the observations of the TUC regretting that the evaluation of the scheme has not been published yet. The TUC also regrets that: (1) the low pay provided for under the scheme (£145.18 per week) makes it unaffordable for many fathers: (2) agency workers and those on zero-hour contracts do not qualify; and (3) parents can only get shared parental leave when mothers give up part of their maternity leave.

On the right to request flexible working, the Government indicates that this right was extended in 2014, through the adoption of the Flexible Working Regulations 2014. The Government stated that a study on the implementation of these regulations will also be published in 2021. As the COVID-19 pandemic shifted the way that individuals and employers think about flexible working arrangements, the Government reconvened the Flexible Working Taskforce to make the most of the lessons learned from this period. Furthermore, the Government notes that offering flexible working in job advertisements increases the number of female applicants by 16 percent. Regarding childcare, the Government refers to the 30 hours free childcare for working parents who earn at least the equivalent of 16 hours per week at the National Minimum Wage and indicates that an estimated 345,700 children benefit from this programme. The Committee takes note of the Government’s response to the TUC’s comments that it published its consultation on making flexible working the default on 23rd September 2021. The consultation exercise ended on 1 December 2021. The proposals seek to increase availability and uptake of flexible working among all employees, while recognizing that flexible working arrangements can particularly benefit certain groups, including working parents.

In addition to this information, the Committee takes note of the details regarding the measures adopted to address gender segregation (including measures to promote women’s and girls’ participation in STEM, and women’s participation in leadership positions), and related to child care and flexible hours that were reported in the National Report of the United Kingdom on the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on its efforts to address occupational sex segregation and to promote the participation of women in a wider variety of jobs. Noting the information provided regarding the measures on childcare support, shared parental leave and flexible working arrangements, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the impact of these measures: (i) on shared parental leave and the flexible working time arrangements; and (ii) on the participation of women in full-time and part-time employment. It also requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to address the concerns raised by the TUC regarding the shared parental leave scheme.

Equality of opportunity and treatment irrespective of race, colour or national extraction. Ethnic minorities. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on: (1) the results of the Black and Minority Ethnic 2020 Plan and the Equality Objectives for 2016–20 as well as any other topical initiatives; (2) the steps taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment of ethnic minority groups and combat stereotypes, as well as on the results obtained so far as regard their rate of employment and type of jobs occupied; and (3) the concerns raised by the TUC that the Immigration Act 2016 prohibited undocumented workers from claiming rights at work by fear of being arrested and deported. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indications that the Race Disparity Unit (RDU) collects data on the employment of different ethnic minorities that the Office of National Statics (ONS) publishes quarterly in its Labour Market Status by Ethnic Group. The Committee also takes note of the information provided on the programmes in place to improve the employment of people from ethnic minority backgrounds, including through the National Mentoring Programme, the Plan for Jobs, the Ten Point Plan aiming at the creation of green jobs, and the Flexible Support Fund. The Committee further notes the results of the Parker Review published in March 2021 on the representation of ethnic minorities on the board of 100 FTSE companies, showing an increase in the number of ethnic minorities represented in the boardroom (75 as at November 2020 from 52 in January 2020). The Government is taking action in 20 targeted areas identified from the results of the Race Disparity Audit conducted in 2017 and updated annually. For the year 2020, the ethnic minority employment rate was 67.9 per cent, an increase of 1.7 and 1.8 percentage points from 2019 and 2018, respectively. The ethnic minority unemployment rate is 3.5 points higher than that of white groups. Those with Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds have the lowest employment rate of 57.9 per cent of all ethnic groups, though this is an increase of 0.8 per cent points and 1.9 per cent points from 2019 and 2018, respectively. They are more likely to be in low skilled, low paying occupations than any other group and receive the lowest average hourly pay. Black/African/Caribbean have the highest unemployment rate of 10.5 per cent, 6.5 percentage points higher than that of white groups.

In this regard, the Committee also takes note of the observations of TUC stressing that a significant pay gap exists for both Black and Minority Ethnic workers (BME). The median pay for white people was £12.40 per hour compared with £12.11 for those from a BME background –with significant regional variations, including a 23.8 per cent pay gap among the two groups in London. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought disproportionate difficulties for BME workers. According to TUC, the figures published by the ONS for August 2021 reveal that last year, the unemployment rate for BME workers has risen from 6.1 per cent to 8 per cent (31 per cent increase), that is three times the rate for white workers, which has risen from 3.6 per cent to 4 per cent (an 11 per cent increase). The TUC is also worried as figures show that BME workers are far more likely to be employed on zero-hour contracts than white workers. For instance, BME women are almost twice as likely to be on a zero-hours contract than white men (4.5 per cent compared to 2.5 per cent), and they are almost one and a half times more likely to be on zero-hours contracts compared to white women (3.4 per cent). The Government states in its response to the observations made by the TUC, that the Independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, in a report in April this year, noted that the pandemic is likely to have a mixed impact on the employment rate and financial stability of ethnic minority groups. The Government states that, historically, employment rates of ethnic minority groups have decreased more than overall employment rates during economic downturns in the UK. It highlights that such a decrease indicates a risk to ethnic minority groups if the economic fallout from the COVID-19 crisis fails to turn into a V-shaped recovery. It also states that zero hours contracts provide important flexibility in the labour market which benefits employers and workers. However, the Government states that it recognizes that some workers on zero hours contracts would like more stability in their working hours and that it is committed to taking forward a key measure to include the right for workers in Great Britain to request a more predictable contract. This means that those who would like more certainty will be able to request a more fixed working pattern from their employer after 26 weeks of service.

The TUC believes that the Government’s plans on adopting a new Nationality and Borders Bill will increase the exploitation of workers with irregular status who would have no legal recourse to claim rights at work (since for example, wages of undocumented workers are considered as the proceed of crimes) and access healthcare. The Committee recalls that under the Convention all migrant workers, including those in an irregular situation, must be protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of the grounds set out in Article 1(1)(a) (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 779).

The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the steps taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment of ethnic minority groups and combat stereotypes, and the results obtained. It also requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken to reduce the pay gap for BME workers and the disproportionate recourse to zero-hour contracts referred to by the TUC. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the impact of COVID-19 on employment rates for ethnic minority groups.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the introduction and implementation of the new right to request a more predictable contract, including the number of workers exercising such a right, and the rate at which such requests are granted.

The Committee notes the Government’s comments on the Nationality and Borders Bill. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government provide information on the impact of the Immigration Act 2016 and if adopted, of the Nationality and Borders Bill, on the protection of undocumented migrant workers against discrimination based on race, colour or national extraction.

Racial Equality Strategy 2015–25 for Northern Ireland. The Committee also notes the Northern Ireland Racial Equality Indicators Report: 2014–2019 (Published in 31 March 2021) provided by the Government. This states that: (1) the percentage of minority ethnic school leavers with no qualifications had decreased from 5.8 per cent in 2013–14 to 2.2 per cent in 2018–19; (2) at the 2011 Census, 30.2 per cent of minority ethnic people were in “managerial” or “professional” occupations; compared with 25.8 per cent white people; (3) in 2019, the proportion of respondents reporting they were prejudiced against people from minority ethnic communities had increased significantly since the baseline (2014: 24 per cent, 2018: 20 per cent, 2019: 29 per cent); (4) the number of racist incidents reported has increased from the 2013–14 baseline (976) to 2018–19 (1,124); and (5) in the latest available data (2017–18), only 3 per cent of all public appointment applications were from minority ethnic people. The Committee also notes that the Northern Ireland Racial Equality Strategy (RES) (2015–2025) establishes a framework for government departments (and others) to tackle racial inequalities, to eradicate racism and crime and, along with the Strategy ‘Together: Building a United Community’, to promote good race relations and social cohesion. The strategy has seven aims to address specific areas of concern developed in consultation with minority ethnic representatives. They include: (1) elimination of racial inequality, (2) combating racism and hate crime, (3) equality of service provision, (4) participation, (5) social cohesion, (6) capacity-building, and (7) cultural identity. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the steps taken to promote equality of opportunity and treatment of ethnic minority groups and combat stereotypes, and the results obtained. It also requests the Government to provide information on the steps taken to increase access of ethnic minorities to public appointments. Further, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information on racist incidents, which may impede workers’ ability to access the labour market, and the steps taken to address this.

LGBT Action Plan and Advisory Panel. The Committee takes note of the TUC’s observations indicating that the 2018 LGBT Action Plan was abandoned and that the LGBT Advisory Panel that had been established to support the Government in meeting the goals established in the plan was disbanded in April 2021. The TUC indicates that the Government had announced plans to replace the panel but that these plans have not been set out. The Government in its response to the TUC’s observations states that its priorities remain introducing a ban on conversion therapy, delivering the “Safe to be me” conference in June 2022 and the year of action around that event and digitizing the gender recognition certificate application process. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of the implementation of the 2018 LGBT Action Plan, as well as on the impact of the decision to disband the LGBT Advisory Panel to achieve the goals set out in the plan. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new plans adopted or envisaged to address equality and non-discrimination in employment and occupation for LBGT workers.

Article 3(a). Cooperation of workers’ and employers’ organizations. Equality bodies. The Committee had asked the Government to provide information on the involvement and participation of social partners in the work of equality bodies. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) operates independently from the Government and makes its own strategic decisions on how to engage with the social partners as well as their level of participation and engagement on key policy initiatives. The EHRC’s Framework Document, establishes that the Chair and Board members’ appointments will be made by the Minister for Women and Equalities with regard to the Paris Principles, which stress the need for “pluralist representation”, referring among other members of the civil society to representatives of trade unions. The Government further specifies that the EHRC’s Strategic Plan sets out five priority areas to work on, including Priority aim 1 on equal access to labour market and fair treatment at work. On this, the EHCR engages with the trade unions, including the TUC, and also takes on board the expertise of workers in specific areas, such as education and health and social care. It works in close collaboration with trade unions to consult and negotiate in all relevant matters. The Committee takes note of this information.

Awareness-raising and enforcement. The Committee had asked for information on the impact of the withdrawal from the European Union on the application of the Convention. Further to its request, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the protections provided in the Equality Act 2010, some of which are derived from the legislation of the European Union, will continue to apply.

The Committee has also repeatedly requested the Government to provide information on the administrative and judicial decisions concerning the implementation of the Convention and to provide information on the impact of the removal of the employment tribunals’ power to make wider recommendations. It notes that the Government does not provide information on the number of decisions nor on the trends in relation to discrimination claims and their rates of success. The Government indicates that the tribunals power to make wider recommendations under the Equality Act 2010 created a perception of undue burden on, and unfairness for, businesses and did not serve any useful purpose. The estimated cost of making wider recommendations to employers who did implement a recommendation was about £2,000. The Government states that ensuring changes are instigated by the employer without the need for recommendations means that they are more likely to be committed to and see positive results. Moreover, the tribunals’ recommendations were often that individual or management groups should undertake diversity training, in particular “unconscious bias” training, that have been shown to be of little value. While taking note of these indications, the Committee recalls that public awareness-raising, including on “unconscious bias” is essential to address prejudice and stereotypes regarding the professional abilities and aspirations of certain groups with lead to exclusion and discrimination in society and the labour market (General Survey of 2012, paragraph 865). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any administrative or judicial decisions on discrimination in employment and occupation, as well as information on the number and nature of discrimination claims brought before the employment tribunals and on their outcome. It further requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures adopted to raise awareness of prejudices and stereotypes regarding the professional abilities of certain groups in the private and the public sectors.

The Committee notes the observations of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) received on 30 August 2021 and communicated to the Government. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s reply.

Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. Protection against discrimination based on social origin and political opinion. Law and practice. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Equality Act 2010 did not specifically refer to the grounds of social origin and political opinion. It requested the Government to provide concrete examples of how cases alleging discrimination based on social origin and “caste” are dealt with by courts and tribunals, and information on the number of cases of discrimination based on political opinion and on the measures taken to protect workers against such form of discrimination.

Discrimination based on social origin. With regard to the protection against discrimination based on membership of a “caste”, the Government, in its report, states that it is aware of only three cases brought before the courts that involved considerations of caste and its relation to social origin. In Naveed v. Aslam (2012), the Employment Tribunal declared that the complaint was not well-founded as the “incidents were entirely unrelated to the claimant’s caste (or indeed to any other racially tainted characteristic)”. In Begraj v. Manak (2014), the case was not concluded after the judge in charge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal recused herself. In Tirkey v. Chandhok (2014), the Employment Appeal Tribunal found in favour of the claimant’s contention that she was discriminated against because of her low status including by reason of her caste. While the judge accepted that “caste” was not explicitly part of the Equality Act 2010, he also stated that many of the identifying features of a person’s descent which determined their caste related to their “ethnic origins” and this is explicitly protected under the Equality Act. The claimant was awarded compensation of £180,000. In the Government’s view, this judgment means that it is likely that anyone who believes that they have been discriminated against because of caste could now bring a race discrimination claim under the existing ethnic origin limb of the race provisions of the Equality Act 2010 because of their descent. The Government considers therefore that the best way to provide the necessary protection against unlawful discrimination because of caste is by relying on emerging case-law as developed by courts and tribunals. Consequently, section 9(5) of the Equality Act 2010 providing that a Minister of the Crown: (1) must by order amend this section so as to provide for caste to be an aspect of race, and (2) may by order amend this Act so as to provide for an exception to a provision of this Act to apply, or not to apply, to caste or to apply, or not to apply, to race in specified circumstances, will be repealed. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the observations of the TUC on the employment situation of working-class workers. The TUC emphasizes that people from working class backgrounds still earn less than those from middle class backgrounds, even when they have the same qualifications and do the same type of job. Even when those from working-class backgrounds attend university, they still enter the job market earning less than those from middle-class and private-school backgrounds. The TUC’s analysis of data provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) shows that graduates with parents in “professional and routine” jobs are more than twice as likely as working-class graduates to start on a high salary, no matter what degree level they attain. The Government refers in its response to the National Living Wage and the National Minimum Wage that it states provide essential protection for the lowest paid workers.

While taking note of the information provided by the Government on the case law regarding discrimination based on “caste”, the Committee recalls that discrimination and lack of equal opportunities based on social origin refers to situations in which an individual’s membership of a class, socio-occupational category or caste determine his or her occupational future (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 802). The Committee notes that there has been only one successful case of discrimination connected to “caste”, which may indicate that the absence of explicit mention of it in the Equality Act demonstrates a lack of awareness of its protection under the Act. The Committee notes with regret the fact that the Government is proposing to repeal section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act 2010.

Further, the notion of “social origin” is broader in scope than the notion of “caste” referenced in the case law reported by the Government. The Committee takes note of the Government’s response to the TUC’s comments that it does not propose to introduce the socio-economic duty under Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 for England or in respect of Great-Britain wide bodies, and notes with regret that the Government does not propose to add a new characteristic to the Equality Act 2010 addressing social origin.

Discrimination based on political opinion. With regard to cases relating to discrimination based on political opinion, the Government indicates that there are no central records on the number of cases brought domestically, broken down by protected characteristic. It is open to people to contest that their political beliefs are so strong that they can be captured by the religion or belief provisions within the Equality Act 2010, and domestic courts have been open to considering such cases on their individual merits. Discrimination on the basis of political opinion is therefore protected against. Furthermore, the Committee notes that while the Equality Act 2010 covers “philosophical belief”, it does not appear to cover “political opinion”. The Committee notes that protection for political opinion implies protection in respect of the activities of expressing or demonstrating opposition to established political principles and opinions, and covers discrimination based on political affiliation. The notion of “belief” explained by the Government is narrower than the concept of political opinion enshrined in the Convention (see 2012 General Survey, paragraph 805).The Committee also recalls that where legal provisions are adopted to give effect to the principle of the Convention, they should include at least all the grounds of discrimination specified in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention (see 2012 General Survey, paragraph 853). The Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that at least all the prohibited grounds of discrimination specified in Article 1(1)(a) are included in the legislation and that, in the meantime, workers are protected in practice against discrimination based on their social origin and political opinion. It further asks for detailed information on the measures adopted to address discrimination faced by workers from working-class backgrounds reported by the TUC, as well as on any cases relating to claims of discrimination based on social origin or political opinion, including the facts of those cases (such as the scope and particulars of discrimination based on social origin, at least in terms of salaries and opportunities for advancement) and the remedies provided.

Discrimination based on religion. The Committee previously requested the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to address discrimination and stereotyped attitudes concerning religion, including on the impact of these measures on access to employment and education for the Muslim community. The Committee takes note of the indication that the Government engages with Muslim communities through a number of faith and integration projects. These projects are often geographically targeted to address problems faced by the communities where there can be high degrees of segregation and often seek to address issues of disadvantage or exclusion that create barriers to integration and employability. Noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide data on the impact of the measures taken on access to employment and education for the Muslim community, as well as any other activities undertaken specifically in the field of discrimination in employment and occupation.

Northern Ireland. The Committee has been asking the Government to take steps to abolish the exclusion of teachers from protection against discrimination on the ground of religious belief in Northern Ireland (section 71(1) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order, 1998). The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report does not contain any information in this regard. The Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to repeal the exclusion of teachers from protection against discrimination on the ground of religious belief in Northern Ireland provided in section 71(1) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order, 1998.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its 2019 report as well as the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee also notes the observations of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), received on 30 August 2019, and the Government’s reply to those observations, received on 12 November 2019. It notes that the TUC sent supplementary information on 1 October 2020.

Recalling that in January 2016 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ratified the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930, the Committee observes that the Government has not provided a detailed report on the application of its provisions. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the questions raised below as well as on measures taken to implement each provision of the Protocol.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Suppressing all forms of forced labour, including trafficking in persons. 1. National strategies. In its previous comments, the Committee noted with interest the measures taken to strengthen the legislative and institutional framework to combat all forms of forced labour and encouraged the Government to pursue its efforts and provide information on the implementation of the various strategies adopted. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in July 2018, it commissioned an Independent Review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Government has accepted or partially accepted the majority of the recommendations contained in the final report. Among the measures taken, the Government indicates that it is considering how to strengthen the independence of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (IASC), which has among its tasks to prepare a new strategic plan. The Committee also notes that the Government publishes annual reports on progress made on tackling slavery. According to these reports, the Government agrees that improving evidence of the scale and nature of modern slavery is a priority, considering that this is a complex and largely hidden crime. The Government established the Modern Slavery Policy and Evidence Centre in autumn 2019, which commissioned new research to enhance the evidence-based reports on modern slavery and improve understanding thereof.

In relation to Scotland, the Committee notes the publication of annual progress reports on the implementation of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Strategy adopted in May 2017. The strategy covers three areas: victim identification and support; identification of perpetrators and disruption of their activities; and root causes of trafficking and exploitation. According to the 2020 UK Annual Report on modern slavery, while the Strategy was considered fit for purpose, the Scottish Government is committed to working with all partners and other interests to develop a revised and updated Strategy.

The Committee notes that in Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice developed in partnership with statutory organizations and NGOs, its third Modern Slavery Strategy for 2019–2020 around three key themes: pursue, protect and prevent. The Committee observes that the Organized Crime Task Force (OCTF) regularly monitors progress made and documents results in its annual reports. The Government also indicates that the OCTF provides a strategic partnership forum and helps to develop strong relationships between statutory partners to address modern slavery.

The Committee welcomes the measures taken to continue to develop national strategies to address all forms of forced labour, and to assess regularly the impact of the measures taken. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (IASC) has adopted a new strategic plan and, if so, to provide information on the measures envisaged and the steps taken for their implementation. It also requests the Government to provide information on any revised strategy adopted for Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed and concrete information on the results of the regular assessments of these strategies, the obstacles identified and the measures taken to overcome them. It requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the social partners are consulted on the development and implementation of the strategies.

2. Measures to support due diligence to prevent and respond to risks of forced labour. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, certain commercial organizations must disclose a slavery and human trafficking statement for each financial year indicating what they are doing to eradicate modern slavery from their organizations and their supply chains. The Committee notes that while welcoming this provision, the TUC considers that its application has not resulted in sufficient or quality statements. Companies can report that they have taken no steps to combat modern slavery. In relation to public procurement, the TUC indicates that the Government should be using the huge leverage of the public sector buying to raise the level of due diligence on human rights across the board, by ensuring that negligent companies cannot access procurement contracts.

In its reply, the Government indicates that it has put in place a central reporting service for annual transparency in supply chain statements; extended the transparency requirements to the public sector; and developed tools and guidance to support how public bodies conduct modern slavery due diligence. Under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, bidders for public contracts who have been convicted of child labour or human trafficking offences under the Modern Slavery Act within the last 5 years must be excluded from public procurements. In March 2020, the first Government Modern Slavery Statement was published, which outlines the steps undertaken to drive responsible practices and prevent risks in Government supply chains. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the steps taken to support companies and public bodies to take measures to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address the risks of forced labour in their operations or in products or services to which they may be directly linked.

3. Identification and protection of victims. The Committee notes that according to the 2020 UK Annual Report on modern slavery, in 2019, there were 10,627 potential victims referred to the national referral mechanism (NRM) by first responders (a 52 per cent increase from 2018). Victims came mainly from the United Kingdom, Albania, Vietnam, China and India. The most common reported exploitation type was labour exploitation (52 per cent), followed by sexual exploitation (33 per cent). According to the report, the increase in NRM referrals is likely to be indicative of greater awareness of the NRM and improved law enforcement activity. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in Scotland, regulations have set to 90 days the period during which the provision of support and assistance to adult victims is considered necessary, taking into account the victims’ needs. It also notes the funding agreements concluded with NGOs in Scotland and Northern Ireland for the provision of material assistance and medical support to a growing number of victims (from 158 victims in 2016-2017 to 251 in 2018-2019 in Scotland; and from 20 to 38 in Northern Ireland for the same period).

The Committee notes that, in its observations, the TUC indicates that first responder organizations that refer victims to the NRM receive insufficient training on the identification and support of victims, and on the different steps of the NRM process. The TUC refers in particular to the process for reviewing negative decisions concerning the status of a victim (reasonable grounds decisions and conclusive grounds decisions). The TUC also refers to barriers in access to compensation, and emphasizes that assistance provided to victims should not be linked to a definite timeframe but rather respond to their needs.

The Committee notes that in its reply, the Government indicates that it has started a multi-agency review to identify what training first responders should receive and how it should be delivered. It also states that the Home Office is embarking on an ambitious NRM Transformation Programme to improve the decision-making process, and address the challenges faced in delivering needs-based support for victims.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved by the NRM Transformation Programme and on the measures taken to ensure that assistance and support is provided as soon as there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim of modern slavery and that this support is provided over a sufficient period of time for their recovery and rehabilitation. It requests the Government provide specific information on the number of victims who have benefitted from the different types of assistance (medical, psychological, material and legal support as well as temporary resident or work permits). The Committee also requests the Government to communicate statistics on the number of persons referred to the NRM, the number of negative reasonable or conclusive grounds decisions and the number of such decisions that have been reviewed by the competent authority.

4. Protection of migrant workers from possible abusive and fraudulent practices. The Committee notes that in its observation, the TUC indicates that the Government is planning to introduce a number of temporary sector specific migration programmes for EEA and non EEA workers. The TUC alleges that such sector specific visas present high risks for migrant workers by providing them an insecure status and requests the Government to ensure that the schemes adopted will be designed to create resilience to exploitation. The Committee also notes that the TUC indicates that analysis of government enforcement agencies shows that bodies tasked with protecting victims of modern slavery are also sharing information on their immigration status. The TUC expresses concern at this practice of reporting information on status by labour inspectors, which undermines the aims of victim identification, prevention of modern slavery and prosecutions. The Committee recalls in this regard that according to Article 4 of the Protocol all victims of forced labour, irrespective of their legal status in the national territory, shall have access to appropriate and effective remedies, such as compensation. The Committee requests the Government to provide its reply to the TUC’s observations and to indicate the measures taken to ensure that migrant workers are not placed in a position of accrued vulnerability to exploitation, are protected from abusive practices, have knowledge of their rights and have effective access to justice.

5. Law enforcement. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government on the measures taken to continue to improve awareness, training and capacities of frontline police officers and prosecutors, including through the Modern Slavery Police Transformation Programme in England and Wales; the appointment of a National Lead Prosecutor for Human Trafficking in Scotland; the issuance of guidance on identification and reporting of potential victims for frontline officers and the installation of specialized teams in the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The Committee observes that, according to the 2020 UK Annual Report on Modern Slavery, in June 2020, there were 1,845 active law enforcement investigations, compared with 1,479 in June 2019. The number of prosecutions and convictions have also increased in England and Wales. The Committee notes that in Northern Ireland, the PSNI appoints a financial investigator for all modern slavery and human trafficking investigations and the assets of every potential suspect are considered for seizure. The Government also refers to the first two human trafficking convictions under the new Northern Ireland legislation, emphasizing that these cases did not rely on evidence provided by victims since no potential victims entered the NRM process pre-conviction. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that new legislation has broadened the remit and strengthened the powers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) which has investigated serious cases of labour exploitation across the entire economy in partnership with other enforcement bodies (the Employment Agency Standards (EAS) and the HMRC National Minimum Wage (NMW)).

The Committee encourages the Government to continue to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement bodies to properly identify and address situations of forced labour so that cases may be successfully prosecuted and effective and dissuasive sanctions imposed on perpetrators. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions. The Committee also requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the confiscation of assets of perpetrators as well as on slavery and trafficking reparation orders against offenders to compensate the victims.

Article (2)(2)(c). Privatization of prisons and prison labour. Work of prisoners for private companies. For a number of years, the Committee has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that formal, freely given and informed consent is required for the work of prisoners in privately operated prisons, as well as for all work of prisoners for private companies, both inside and outside prison premises.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that it continues to have in place a robust set of rules and regulations that ensure prisoner labour is not abused. The Government reiterates that it believes that work in prisons falls within the second exception in the Convention by ensuring public sector supervision of prison work carried out in both public and private sector prisons by means of: retaining rehabilitation as the primary purpose of the work; rigorous, independent inspections of both public and private sector prisons and workshops; the strong legislative framework that protects working conditions of prisoners; and their access to effective systems for complaints. The Government adds that work in prisons is a key part of successful prison whether public or private sectors operate it. It serves a number of important functions: providing prisoners with a purposeful activity; giving structure and meaning to prisoners’ days; contributing to improving prisoners’ mental and physical health; and most importantly, preparing prisoners for employment on release. The Government indicates that its flexible approach has enabled it to access new and innovative markets and to work with customers in novel ways, including employers opening employment academies in prison. The Government reiterates that it is keen to continually grow the number of employers who can provide valuable vocational work for offenders while in prison and who are able to offer them support in preparation for release and employment opportunities following their release.

While acknowledging the objective of rehabilitation pursued by the Government in providing work to convicted prisoners, the Committee is bound to reiterate that the privatization of prison labour exceeds the express conditions provided in Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention for exempting compulsory prison labour from the scope of the Convention. The Committee has already pointed out that Article 2(2)(c) expressly prohibits that convicted prisoners are hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations, in the sense that the exception from the scope of the Convention provided for in this Article for compulsory prison labour does not extend to work of prisoners for private employers (including privatized prisons and prison workshops), even under public supervision and control. Thus, to be compatible with the Convention, the work of prisoners for private companies must not involve compulsion. It must require the formal, freely given and informed consent of the persons concerned, as well as further guarantees and safeguards covering the essential elements of a labour relationship, such as the level of wages, the extent of social security, and the application of regulations on safety and health. As the Committee has repeatedly pointed out, in spite of the express prohibition for prisoners to be hired to or placed at the disposal of private parties under the terms of the Convention, it is nevertheless fully possible for governments to apply the Convention when designing or implementing a system of privatized prison labour, once the above-mentioned requirements are complied with. Therefore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that formal, freely given and informed consent is required for the work of prisoners in privately operated prisons, as well as for all work of prisoners for private companies, both inside and outside prison premises, with such consent being authenticated by the conditions of work approximating those of a free labour relationship.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its 2019 report as well as the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee also notes the observations of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) received on 30 August 2019, and the Government’s reply to these observations, received on 12 November 2019. It notes that the TUC sent supplementary information on 1 October 2020.

Article (2)(2)(c) of the Convention. Sentence of unpaid work requirements. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the 2015 conclusions of the tripartite committee established to examine a representation submitted by the trade unions UNISON, GMB and Napo, alleging non-observance of the Convention (GB.325/INS/15/8). The representation addressed the contractual arrangements made by the Government with privately owned Community Rehabilitation Centers (CRCs) which were in charge of placing offenders with providers to perform community work imposed as a consequence of a judicial decision. The tripartite committee noted that while being privately owned, the CRCs carried out public functions on behalf of the State; and the work undertaken by offenders was carried out in the general interest of the community.

The Committee observed that unpaid work requirements were imposed without offenders giving their consent to such sentences. As a form of compulsory work imposed as a consequence of a judicial decision, its performance must remain within the limits of the exception to forced labour provided for in Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. Consequently, the Committee requested the Government to continue to ensure that the work performed under unpaid work requirements was adequately monitored; that CRCs were subject to the regular scrutiny of the public authorities; and that compulsory work performed under a sentence of unpaid work requirements was not undertaken for private entities.

The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that the CRC contracts are subject to robust contract management procedures and governance arrangements. The contractor is required to: disclose details of all income that exceeds the cost of providing unpaid work; demonstrate how it has reinvested that income in the provision of the services; disclose its delivery models and the amount of income generated by outsourcing unpaid work to a subcontractor; and demonstrate that it will not profit directly from unpaid work. The Government provides a selection of responses from two CRCs, out of the 21 operating, in which they generally state that they comply with these requirements.

The Committee notes that in its 2019 observations the TUC, based on independent audits and inspections of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme (the Government’s probation privatization programme), affirms that the Government has failed to subject the CRCs to rigorous contractual oversight and inspections aiming at ensuring that CRCs are deploying unpaid work properly. The TUC also maintains that unpaid work has been placed at the disposal of private companies in the form of the third party profit-making beneficiaries of unpaid work. The Committee further notes that in its 2020 supplementary observations, the TUC indicates that on 11 June 2020, the Government announced to the House of Commons that it would end the competitive process for probation delivery partners and that, from June 2021, unpaid work will be brought under the control of a public authority (the National Probation Service).

The Committee welcomes the Government’s statement to the House of Commons to the effect that from June 2021 private entities will no longer be in charge of placing sentenced offenders with providers to perform community work, allowing for better compliance with Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the effective implementation of this measure and to continue to provide information on the nature of the entities that benefit from unpaid work, as well as on the type of general interest work undertaken.

The Committee notes the observations of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), communicated with the Government’s report and received on 13 October 2020, as well as the response of the Government, received on 29 October 2020.

COVID-19 measures. The Committee appreciates the efforts of the Government to provide information in its report in relation to measures taken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland (HSENI) in response to the COVID 19 pandemic, which include the provision of information and technical advice, and the establishment of dedicated helplines for workers, trade unions and the public to report concerns about workplace practices. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement that the HSE continues to engage with the tripartite stakeholders during this period.

Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention. Number and conditions of service of labour inspectors. The Committee previously noted with concern the declining numbers of inspectors, and noted the TUC’s allegations concerning important staff recruitment and retention issues faced by the HSE due to limitations on career progression and unattractive wages, compared to similar positions in the private and public sectors.

As regards recruitment and retention measures, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the effectiveness of the HSE demonstrates that there are sufficient numbers of inspectors to secure the effective discharge of its duties. The Committee notes the statistics in the Annual Report of the HSE 2019–20 indicating that there were 1,059 inspectors, visiting officers and regulatory compliance officers in the HSE as of March 2020, compared to 1,066 in March 2019. However, the Committee notes that the TUC alleges the existence of difficulties in reversing the declining numbers of inspectors and that there are only 290 full-time equivalent main grade regulatory inspectors for the whole of the United Kingdom, excluding Northern Ireland. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that additional financial and human resources have been secured to underpin the HSE’s approach to the COVID 19 pandemic. In this respect, the Committee notes that, according to the TUC, the additional staff secured using this financing can only be hired under fixed-term contracts, for this financial year. The TUC also indicates that the additional resources have been used to offer HSE staff overtime.

With regard to the conditions of service of inspectors, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it refutes the TUC’s observations, and maintains that the pay policy of the public sector is applied fairly. The Committee nevertheless notes the TUC’s reference to data from exit interviews in which departing HSE staff indicated to HSE that pay was the main or a significant factor for a large majority in their decision to leave. The TUC further alleges that the higher wages of temporary staff hired in the context of the pandemic have also led to dissatisfaction among the remaining staff. In response to the TUC’s observations, the Government asserts that it believes its funding to be adequate, including in relation to the response to COVID 19. The Committee recalls that, in its 2006 General Survey, Labour Inspection, paragraphs 204 and 209, it underlined the importance of the levels of remuneration and career prospects of inspectors to attract, retain and protect high-quality staff from any improper influence. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of inspectors performing labour inspection in the HSE, and detailed information on the conditions of service of labour inspectors, including their actual remuneration scale and career prospects, in relation to comparable categories of government employees exercising similar functions, such as tax inspectors or police officers. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged to recruit new labour inspectors or to improve the conditions of service of labour inspectors, with a view to retaining them within the labour inspection service. The Committee invites the Government to consider engaging in discussions with the social partners on this issue, and requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of any discussions undertaken.

Articles 6, 11 and 15(a). Financial resources of the labour inspection services. The Committee had previously noted the use of the Fee for Intervention (FFI) cost recovery scheme, which obliges employers in breach of occupational safety and health (OSH) requirements to cover HSE costs in identifying, investigating, rectifying and/or enforcing relevant violations. In this respect, the Committee noted the challenges, based on the Annual Report of the HSE 2018–19, relating to the effective management of the financial resources and the effect of the uncertain nature of FFI income on budgeting. The Committee also noted the TUC’s concerns regarding the risk of unintended consequences, such as employer reluctance to seek advice and technical information proactively from the HSE.

In response to the TUC’s observations, the Committee notes that the Government considers that there is no risk of employer reluctance, because the fee-paying work would arise in the first instance as a result of a non-fee-paying inspection or investigation. The Committee also notes that, in response to its request for the Government to take measures to address budgeting challenges, the Government indicates that funding is regularly discussed at the senior level of the HSE. The Committee notes that the Business Plan of the HSE 2019–20 refers to increasing the costs recovered from regulatory work, and to the submission of proposals for a future fees and charges strategy to the HSE board. The HSE further indicates in its Annual Report 2019–20, that it expects a significant reduction in its income due to its decreased ability to undertake cost recoverable and commercial work during the COVID-19 lockdown, and that this would inevitably result in a need for additional funding from the Government. Reaffirming that labour inspection is a vital public function, at the core of promoting and enforcing decent working conditions, and recognizing the particular challenges faced by the country in the COVID-19 context, the Committee requests the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to ensure that sufficient budgetary resources are allocated for labour inspection. As regards the cost recovery scheme, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether employers have been, or will be, surveyed about any reluctance or concerns they may have in seeking technical assistance and advice from HSE in light of FFI, and also detailed information on the strategy of the HSE regarding fees and charges, including income targets established for cost recovery work and the FFI scheme, if any. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the outcome of the HSE’s proposals concerning funding, with respect to obtaining additional resources.

Articles 10 and 16. Resources of the labour inspection system and inspection visits. 1. Coverage of workplaces by labour inspection. The Committee previously noted the reform of the labour inspection strategy regarding the planning and targeting of workplaces for inspections, and underlined the importance of ensuring that often-vulnerable categories of workers are not excluded from protection because they are not employed in high-risk workplaces or sectors, or are employed in sectors where labour inspection is considered too resource-intensive. In this regard, the TUC had alleged that some potentially dangerous workplaces were going without inspection because regional variations and other anomalies were not taken into account in the HSE’s approach.

The Committee notes the statistics contained in the Annual Report of the HSE 2019–20, which refer to 13,300 inspections completed in 2019–20, including approximate numbers of inspections in different industries. The Committee also notes that the Government refers to the ongoing reflection and improvement work on the intelligence-led system allowing for the targeting of workplaces (“Going to the Right Places Programme” and the “Find-it targeting tool”), including benchmarking visits to provide a comparison for performance. The Government indicates that following this evaluation, steps were taken to ensure that resources were diverted to sectors where issues were identified. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in particular, that it is important to continue to monitor sectors outside existing higher risks groups, and that it considers vulnerable workers in the establishment of inspection priorities and programmes. The Committee also notes the TUC’s observations that the high rate of injuries in low-risk workplaces puts into question the approach of the HSE. The TUC states that the risk-ranking is based on the factory inspectorate model, and is not adapted to workplaces of today, where risks related to various occupational diseases, including COVID-19 infection and occupational cardiovascular disease, as well as psychosocial risks, may affect workers of all types. The TUC also expresses concerns that the data available for the “Find-it targeting tool” is limited, and that the decrease in inspector numbers will have an effect on the quality and quantity of the available data. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s response to the TUC’s observations, indicating that the HSE has dedicated staff undertaking work on psychosocial risks and that data on the subject is recorded and reported annually, thus informing prioritization and resource allocation. The Committee requests the Government to provide further detailed information on the manner in which vulnerable categories of workers, or workers in sectors outside identified higher risks groups, are taken into account in the HSE’s inspection priorities and programmes. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of inspections conducted, disaggregated by industry, as well as information on the outcome of the assessment undertaken of the “Going to the Right Places Programme” and the “Find-it targeting tool”, including their impact on the quality and quantity of labour inspection visits.

2. Strategies for compliance in lower-risk small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Committee previously noted that long-standing problems, such as helping smaller businesses to manage risks proportionately, were one of the targets of the period covered by the Annual Report of the HSE 2018–19. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the HSE has given advice and guidance to address the needs of SMEs on its website, and is currently reviewing the impact of this guidance. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the impact of the measures taken by the HSE on the compliance of SMEs with the relevant legal provisions, and to continue to provide information on measures taken to achieve this objective. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of its review on the impact of the guidance provided.

Articles 17 and 18. Prompt legal proceedings for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. The Committee previously noted a decrease in the number of cases brought by the HSE in which a verdict or conviction has been reached, and requested information on the HSE’s assessment regarding the reasons for this decrease. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that changes to sentencing guidelines for health and safety prosecutions in February 2016 have increased the level of penalties available, which has led to prosecutions taking longer, and that it is still reviewing the factors impinging on prosecution work. The Committee notes that, according to the Annual Report of the HSE 2019–20, there were 355 prosecution cases where a verdict has been reached in the period covered by that report, as compared to 396 in 2018–19 and 509 in 2017–18. The Committee also notes the observations of the TUC, agreeing that the change in sentencing guidelines is slowing down prosecutions, as the prospect of potential increased fines has meant longer sentencing hearings. According to the TUC, the work in this respect takes a significant amount of inspector time and resources and these resource implications must be addressed. The TUC also urges the Government to include trade unions in the ongoing review. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that there have been no changes to HSE policy for decision-making and that it remains committed to prosecuting where there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to do so. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on its assessment of the factors impinging on the HSE’s prosecution work and on any measures taken or envisaged to improve the situation, including increased allocations for inspector time and resources, and to provide information on any consultations held on this matter. The Committee also requests the Government to provide further information on the role of inspectors in the process, including the time and resources dedicated to these legal proceedings as a proportion of overall inspector time and resources.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of Convention No. 102 on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on social security, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Convention No. 42 (workers’ compensation for occupational diseases) and Convention No. 102 (minimum standards) together.

Part II (Medical care). Articles 8, 10, 11, 69 and 70 of Convention No. 102. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning the contingencies covered by medical care, the types of medical care benefits provided, the qualifying period for entitlement to medical care benefits, the causes of suspension of medical care benefits, and the right to complain and appeal of persons protected.

Parts III (Sickness benefit) and IV (Unemployment benefit). Benefits to be taken into account. Universal credit. The Committee recalls that its previous comments on the application of Part III, notably Articles 15(a), 16, 17, 68, 69, 72(1) and Part IV, notably Articles 22, 23, 24 of the Convention, concerned the Statutory Sick Pay, Agricultural Sick Pay, and Jobseeker’s Allowance (Contributory). The Committee notes however, from the indications provided by the Government in its report, that Parts III and IV of the Convention are now applied by the Universal Credit (UC), a social assistance benefit available to individuals and households of limited means, who may be at risk of falling into poverty, including in the event of sickness and unemployment. The Committee also notes the Government‘s indication that persons protected under the UC are all residents whose means during the contingency do not exceed prescribed limits and who meet conditions of entitlement. The Committee further notes from the supplementary information provided by the Government that the UC is currently being phased in on the United Kingdom territory and that it is expected to be fully implemented by September 2024. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the state of implementation of the UC and on the effective population coverage of the UC.

Parts III (Sickness benefit) and IV (Unemployment benefit), in conjunction with Article 69. Suspension of benefit. Claimant commitment. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that all claimants must accept a Claimant Commitment as a condition of entitlement to UC. As explained by the Government, the Claimant Commitment sets out what claimants have agreed to do to prepare for and look for work, or to increase their earnings if already employed. The Government further indicates that a couple living in the same household makes a joint claim for UC and that each member of a couple has his or her own Claimant Commitment, being an equal claimant and therefore, jointly and individually liable. The Government further points out that acceptance of the Claimant Commitment is a legal condition of entitlement for UC for the full household. Thus, the Government specifies, in a household with two adult claimants, where one of the claimants does not accept his or her Claimant Commitment, this may result in the household (both adults) not being eligible for UC. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government on the possibility to remove the Claimant Commitment’s requirement, in exceptional circumstances, where a claimant is unable to accept a Claimant Commitment. This may include, for example, claimants who have an appointee or someone acting on their behalf, claimants who are incapacitated in hospital and exceptional emergency situations. Where the claimant is physically or mentally unable to accept a Claimant Commitment and this is unlikely to change, or it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so due to terminal illness, the requirement to accept a Claimant Commitment is waived.

While taking note of the above, the Committee recalls that the Convention does not allow the suspension of the benefit for causes other than those mentioned in Article 69 of the Convention and that failure by another person to accomplish certain formalities should not deprive a person protected to his or her own right to sickness or unemployment benefit when he/she meets the qualifying conditions set forth in Part III or IV of the Convention, respectively. In order to assess the practical implications of the Claimant Commitment’s requirement on the effective provision of UC benefits, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of cases in which a claimant who would have otherwise met the conditions for entitlement to UC benefit was denied such entitlement due to the failure of another adult in the same household to accept a Claimant Commitment.

Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Articles 20 and 24(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 69. Work-related requirements in case of unemployment and reduction of the benefit. The Committee observes that sections 15–18 of the Welfare Reform Act of 2012 establish four types of work-related requirements, each of which comprising a range of actions to be performed by claimants, including requirements to carry out work searches and to take up paid work. The Committee also notes the indication by the Government that under section 97(4), (5) and (6) of the Universal Credit Regulations of 2013 and section 95(4), (5) and (6) of the Universal Credit Regulations (Northern Ireland) of 2016, restrictions on the type of work and the salary may be permitted where claimants have: (1) a strong and sustained work history in a specific occupation; (2) a health condition which may prevent them undertaking certain work or in certain locations. The period during which such restrictions are applied (“permitted period”) is up to three months at the discretion of a work coach who tests claimants’ prospects of finding this type of work. The Committee notes the explanations provided by the Government in this regard, specifying that the permitted period is at the discretion of a work coach, as in some circumstances an inflexible approach (limiting the work of a similar nature or level of remuneration to the previous work) could hinder an individual’s ability to find work and damage future employment prospects by creating a longer spell of unemployment. The Committee further notes that if a claimant fails to comply with work-related requirements for no good reason, the amount of UC benefit is to be reduced for a certain period in accordance with sections 26 and 27 of the Welfare Reform Act of 2012. The Committee recalls that Articles 20 and 24(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 69 of the Convention, provide protection against the suspension of unemployment benefit or the reduction of such benefit below the minimum level set out in its Article 22 (and the Schedule to Part XI), in case of refusal from the beneficiary to take up unsuitable employment, at least during the first 26 weeks of benefit payment. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the amount and duration of the reduction applied to the benefit in case of refusal by a claimant to take up unsuitable employment, i.e. employment which does not match the criteria set out in section 94 of the Universal Credit Regulations of 2013 and section 95 of the Universal Credit Regulations (Northern Ireland) of 2016. The Committee also requests the Government to consider withholding such sanctions during the first 26 weeks of benefit payment and to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to this effect.

Parts III (Sickness Benefit) and IV (Unemployment Benefit) in conjunction with Articles 71(3) and 72(2). Responsibility of the State for the due provision of benefits. (i) Delay for first payment to be made. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the time required to process UC claims and to make the first payment to new claimants. More specifically, it notes that claimants receive their first payment five weeks after the point of claim, as an assessment period of a calendar month is needed to calculate entitlement, followed by one week of payment processing. The Committee notes that, during this period, claimants can apply for advance payments corresponding to up to 100 per cent of the total expected monthly award, which can be paid back over a period of up to 12 months, and up to 16 months from October 2021. The Committee further notes the indication by the Government that the offer of an advance is subject to checks to make sure that the claimant can afford the repayments and that around 60 per cent of new claimants eligible for UC receive such advance. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the UC benefit is paid retroactively from the day the claim is made, in respect of the five weeks comprising the assessment period and payment processing during which advances are provided. While noting that the UC is at the inception stage, the Committee hopes that the Government will consider reducing the five-week delay for payment of the UC benefit as soon as possible with a view to avoid hardship for the persons protected who are essentially persons with small means.

(ii) Digital service. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government on the various means available to UC beneficiaries who do not have access to a computer or the internet to contact UC and access the various services and on the assistance provided to internet users to support online claims.

Part V (Old-age benefit). Article 26(2). Increased pensionable age. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the first review of the increase of the state pension age beyond 65 years, particularly with regard to the working ability, labour market participation and worklessness of persons aged 65–67. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government on healthy life expectancy, disability-free life expectancy and employment rate of older persons as well as the Government’s indication that it has a number of research projects in the pipeline that are relevant to this question. The Committee further notes from the report that the next review of the state pension age beyond 65 years is scheduled for 2023 at the latest. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of this review.

Article 28, in conjunction with Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments). Replacement rate of old-age benefit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Pensions Act of 2014 introduced the new State Pension (nSP) for people reaching state pensionable age on or after 6 April 2016. The Government further indicates that the full rate of the nSP is based on 35 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits and does not recognize dependants. Transitional arrangements are in place for those who have qualifying years before 6 April 2016, which take someone’s previous National Insurance contributions into account and mean that people could receive less or more than the full rate, depending on their National Insurance record. The Committee notes that the replacement rate of the nSP attains 77.4 per cent for a standard beneficiary of a man and a wife both of pensionable age, who have 30 qualifying years each and did not make National Insurance contributions or get National Insurance credits before 6 April 2016. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that it is not currently appropriate to prorate the nSP and that data provided on the replacement rate is used to illustrate how the nSP calculation will work in the future using current rates. The Committee also notes that the calculation of the replacement rate are based on the assumption that each member in a couple has completed 30 qualifying years. In this regard, the Government explains that the UK National Insurance system awards qualifying years for appropriate work, self-employment and other forms of contributions to UK society (for example, caring for children, caring for dependent relatives including those with sickness and infirmity, seeking work or unable to work due to health conditions). The Government further points out that where there are two individuals in a household, the nSP system design ensures that each of them can build full entitlement over their working life, whether from work, credits from caring duties and other sources, or a combination of the two. In this regard, the Committee recalls that Part V of the Convention does not set out a qualifying period for a dependent spouse based on periods of employment or different forms of contribution, which means that entitlements based on such periods cannot be taken into account for the calculation of the benefit under the Convention. The Committee further observes that, according to the information provided by the Government, in the case of a household comprised of one individual, the replacement rate of the old-age pension is 38.7 per cent, which does not attain the 40 per cent replacement rate required by Article 28 in conjunction with Article 65 and the Schedule to Part XI of the Convention. The Committee notes however the Government’s indication that couples above state pensionable age with a low income may be entitled to Pension Credit: if their income falls below a minimum amount, which was £265.20 a week for couples in 2020–21, then it will be topped-up to a standard minimum amount. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide calculations on the basis of the Pension Credit (without adding family allowances), in accordance with Article 67 of the Convention.

Part X (Survivors’ benefit). Benefits to be taken into account. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that widowed parent’s allowance (WPA) and bereavement allowance are not available to new claimants since April 2017. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether any periodical survivors’ benefits are available to persons protected whose breadwinner has died after April 2017, in accordance with Part X of the Convention.

Article 62 (Calculation of the level of benefit), in conjunction with Article 63 (Qualifying period). In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the level of survivors’ benefit (36.18 per cent) was lower than 40 per cent required by the Convention. The Committee observes from the information provided by the Government that the total amount of the survivors’ benefit is £156.95 which comprises the basic WPA of £121.95, the Child Benefit of £21.05 for the eldest qualifying child, and of £13.95 for the second qualifying child. The Committee further observes that the replacement rate of the survivors’ benefit is 40,44 per cent. The Committee, however, notes from the Government’s indication that the standard basic rate (100 per cent) of the WPA is provided to a survivor in case a deceased spouse or civil partner had qualifying years for about 90 per cent of the years in his/her working life. If a deceased spouse or civil partner had fewer qualifying years than the number needed for the standard basic rate a smaller basic rate will be paid. The Committee further notes that the WPA of £121.95, which is taken into account in the calculations of the replacement rate, is the standard basic rate (100 per cent). In this regard, the Committee recalls that Article 63(1)(a) of the Convention sets out a minimum qualifying period of 15 years of contribution or employment upon completion of which the replacement rate of survivors’ benefit shall be not less than 40 per cent. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide calculations of the replacement rate of the survivors’ benefit to which a spouse or civil partner of a deceased person with 15 years of contribution would be entitled.

Part X (Survivors’ benefit), Article 69. Suspension of benefit. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request concerning the ground for suspension of survivors’ benefit.

Article 2 of Convention No. 42. List of occupational diseases. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which the burden of proof is regulated with respect to diseases which are covered by the Convention but not included in the national list of occupational diseases. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that “where claims are made for injuries or diseases in cases of accidental exposure the claimant must show on the balance of probabilities that an accident occurred”. The Committee recalls that the Schedule appended to the Convention establishes a legal presumption of the vocational origin of the diseases listed in it whenever the workers concerned are employed in the corresponding trades, industries and processes, and relieves the worker of bearing the burden of proving the occupational origin of a disease and the costs of complex and lengthy judicial proceedings. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that persons protected do not have burden of proof with respect to occupational diseases not covered by the national list but covered by the Convention, particularly: (i) all pathological manifestations due to radium and other radioactive substances and to X-rays; and (ii) poisoning by all halogen derivatives of hydrocarbons of the aliphatic series, to give full effect to Article 2 of the Convention.

The Committee has been informed that, based on the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM tripartite working group), the Governing Body has decided that member States for which the Workmen’s Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention (Revised), 1934 (No. 42), is in force should be encouraged to ratify the more recent Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121), or to accept Part VI of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) (see GB.328/LILS/2/1). Conventions Nos 121 and 102 reflect the more modern approach to employment injury benefits and occupational diseases. Ratification of Convention No. 121 will involve the automatic denunciation of the outdated Convention No. 42. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up the Governing Body’s decision at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the SRM tripartite working group) and to consider ratifying Convention No. 121 and/or accepting Part VI of Convention No. 102 as the most up-to-date instruments in this subject area.

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on occupational safety and health, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 115 (radiation protection), 120 (hygiene – commerce and offices), 148 (working environment (air pollution, noise and vibration)) and 187 (promotional framework for OSH) together.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Conventions on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year (see Article 4(2)(c) of Convention No. 187, Article 15 of Convention No. 115, Article 6 of Convention No. 120, and Article 16(b) of Convention No. 148 below), as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

COVID-19 measures. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the occupational safety and health measures taken in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes the measures by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (and the Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland (HSENI)) focused on the provision of information and advice for workers in the health care sector, as well as guidance for employers and workers in managing the risks associated with re-starting business, and proactive inspections. The Government states that throughout the period, the HSE has continued to engage with tripartite stakeholders.

Articles 2(1), 3(1), 4(3)(a) and 5 of Convention No. 187 and Article 5(1) and (2) of Convention No. 148. National OSH policy and programme and tripartite participation. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report on the application of Convention No. 187, in reply to the Committee’s request, on the implementation and impact of the occupational safety and health (OSH) strategy 2009–15. It notes with interest the adoption of a new five year OSH strategy for the period starting in 2016, and the Government’s indication that it is developing a strategy for beyond 2020. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government, in response to the Committee’s request, on the objectives, targets and indicators of progress provided for in the annual business plans and annual performance reports of the HSE. The Committee notes that: (i) the current OSH strategy was developed hand-in-hand with employers and worker representatives; (ii) consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations takes place through regular meetings, conferences and information gathering events; and (iii) the HSE is supported by a range of tripartite advisory committees and industry groups within all major high-risk sectors. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government in its report on the application of Convention No. 148 that representatives of workers and employers are consulted via their membership of the tripartite HSE Board on the formulation, implementation and review of the national strategy for health and safety at work. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the formulation of the OSH strategy for beyond 2020, in consultation with the social partners.

Article 4(2)(c) of Convention No. 187, Article 15 of Convention No. 115, Article 6 of Convention No. 120, and Article 16(b) of Convention No. 148. Mechanisms for ensuring compliance with national laws and regulations relating to OSH, including systems of inspections. The Committee previously noted that under the plan for the reform of the health and safety system, inspection is concentrated on the higher-risk sectors on the basis of a targeting and intelligence system, and that inspection no longer takes place in lower-risk sectors, but that employers in any sector who underperform in health and safety might still be visited. The Committee notes the additional information provided by the Government, in response to its request, on the functioning of this reformed system, including on the modalities for determining sectors as higher or lower risk. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government that it is currently examining the operation of the HSE’s intelligence-led system for targeted inspection visits (the “Going to the Right Places programme”) with a view to informing the future activities of the HSE. The examination of this strategic approach includes benchmarking visits and the Government states that there are further opportunities to improve the targeting. The Committee further notes that the Government provides the requested health and safety statistics in response to its request on the application of Convention No. 187 in practice. With reference to its comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the mechanisms for ensuring compliance with the national occupational health and safety legislation, including statistical data on the application in practice of the above Conventions.

Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)

Article 3(2) of the Convention. Promote and advance, at all relevant levels, the right of workers to a safe and healthy environment. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, in response to its request, concerning the measures taken to promote workers’ involvement for a safe and healthy environment, including the publication of a toolbox aimed at assisting worker safety representatives and employers in the control of workplace hazards. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 4(3)(d). Occupational health services in accordance with national law and practice. The Committee notes the Government’s reference, in response to the Committee’s request on the coverage of workers by occupational health services, to a 2015 study which indicates that around half of all workers have access to occupational health services through their workplace. The Government adds that it is committed to setting out a clear direction and strategy on occupational health by 2019–20, and that it is the Government’s vision to ensure timely access for all workers to quality occupational health services. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on efforts to maintain, progressively develop and periodically review the provision of occupational health services.

Article 4(3)(g). Collaboration with relevant insurance or social security schemes. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, in response to its request, on the collaboration between the HSE and the Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions. This collaboration is governed by a framework agreement, and includes quarterly meetings between the Chair and Chief Executive of the HSE and the leadership of the Department. The Committee requests the Government to provide further details on this collaboration, including with regard to the mechanisms of collection and analysis of data on occupational accidents and diseases in the country.

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

General observation of 2015. The Committee notes the Government’s indications in response to the Committee’s reference to its General observation of 2015, regarding measures taken to give effect to the Convention, particularly as regards the protection of workers through the Ionizing Radiation Regulations 2017, which replaced the Ionizing Radiation Regulations 1999.

Article 2 of the Convention. Application of the Convention to all activities involving exposure of workers to ionizing radiations in the course of their work. Case of emergency workers. The Committee previously emphasized, with reference to the term “emergency exposure” in the national legislation, that for emergency situations, informed emergency workers may volunteer to receive a dose higher than the established reference levels only in limited circumstances, but that they do not include the saving of valuable installations or goods. The Committee notes the Government’s response to its request that the Ionizing Radiations Regulations 2017 and the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2019 still define “emergency exposure” as “to bring help to endangered persons, prevent exposure of a large number of persons or save valuable installations or goods”. However, the Government adds that in practice, a radiation emergency is determined with regard to an impact on health and safety, and that emergency workers may therefore not be subject to an exposure that exceeds the established limit for the sole purpose of saving valuable installations or goods. The Committee requests the Government to consider, for the purpose of legal certainty, to include this interpretation in relevant regulations to provide for the protection of emergency workers in practice.

Article 7(2). Young workers under the age of 16. The Committee notes from the Government’s indications and Part I of Schedule 3 of the Ionizing Radiations Regulations 2017 and Part I of Schedule 3 of the Ionizing Radiations Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 that the limit on the effective dose for any person other than a designated employee or trainee, including any person below the age of 16, is to be 1 mSv in any calendar year.

Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148)

Article 2(3) of the Convention. The Committee welcomes the Government’s statement that it accepts the obligations of the Convention in respect of the categories of hazards relating to noise and vibration, which had been excluded at the time of ratification by the Government. The Committee therefore invites the Government to consider sending a formal notification to the Director-General of the International Labour Office that it accepts the obligations of the Convention in respect of the categories previously excluded, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the Convention.

Article 8(2). Consideration of opinions of technically competent persons designated by employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s reference in its report to legislation providing for the designation of safety representatives and other technically competent persons at the enterprise level. However, the above Article refers to the consideration of opinions of technically competent persons designated by employers’ and workers’ organizations in the establishment of the determination of exposure levels by the competent authority. In this respect, the Committee also notes the information provided by the Government in its comment on the application of Convention No. 187 that the HSE is supported by a range of tripartite advisory committees and industry groups within all major high-risk sectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on how technically competent persons designated by employers’ and workers’ organizations, such as those on tripartite advisory committees, are consulted in the determination of exposure levels by the competent authority.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee appreciates the efforts of the Government to provide information in its report regarding various measures taken in 2020 in the COVID-19 context, such as legislation in Northern Ireland to protect workers’ rights in response to COVID-19, the launch of a skills and jobs fund by the Welsh Government to support its COVID Commitment, and the sub-group of the Scottish Government’s Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board, recommending actions to mitigate the labour market impact of the pandemic.

The Committee notes the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the Governing Body’s decision at its 338th Session (June 2020) (particularly the information concerning measures taken in response to the COVID 19 pandemic). The Committee proceeded to examine the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information provided this year, as well as of the information available to it in 2019.

Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention. Economically active population, employment, unemployment and underemployment statistics. Structure and distribution of the economically active population. The Committee notes the statistics provided by the Government in relation to employment, unemployment and underemployment, as well as in relation to the structure and distribution of the economically active population. It notes the Government’s indication that there have been no changes since the last report and that Articles 7 and 8 continue to be applied. In its supplementary information, the Government indicates that, in response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has reviewed all publications and data published, which has led to the postponement of some publications and datasets. In particular, the Government reports replacing face-to-face interviews with telephone interviewing, the imputation for non-response to the Labour Force Survey and the weighting methodology used. The Committee also notes the additional information communicated by the Government in relation to the planned census, providing links to the Census Regulations 2020 in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Government indicates that the census in Scotland has now been postponed until 2022. The Committee requests the Government to continue to communicate information on the measures implemented in view of the ongoing pandemic and the ways in which the crisis affects data collection, the application of underlying methodology and data publication. It further requests the Government to provide relevant information, including methodological information in relation to the upcoming census as soon as practicable.

Articles 9, 10 and 11. Statistics of average earnings and hours of work, wage structure and distribution, and statistics of labour cost. The Committee notes that the main sources of statistics on earnings, hours of work and labour cost are the Business Register Employment Survey (BRES), a sample survey which has replaced the Annual Business Inquiry since 2009, the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings – Northern Ireland, the Index of Average Earnings and the Index of Labour Costs per Hour (ILCH).The Government indicates that given the creation of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in the United Kingdom, the ONS will consider revising the base definition for analysis (namely, employees on adult pay rates who have not suffered loss of pay due to absence from work). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on statistics on earnings, hours of work and labour costs, as well as corresponding methodological information. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in relation to the nature and impact of any revisions to the base definition for analysis.

Article 12. Consumer price indices. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there have been no changes since its last report. In its previous comments, the Committee requested information with respect to the new advisory panels on consumer prices created in 2015. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government provide information with respect to the new advisory panels, including their functioning and impact on the calculation of consumer price indices.

Article 14. Statistics on occupational injuries. The Committee notes that the most recent statistics on occupational injuries received from the Government pertain to 2018. The Committee requests the Government to provide the most recent annual statistics on fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries, disaggregated by economic activity and occupation, derived from the Labour Inspectorate records, and as far as possible to provide the most recent annual statistics on occupational diseases, similarly disaggregated.

Article 15. Statistics of industrial disputes. The Committee notes that on the ONS website, under the heading “Coronavirus – Impact on labour market outputs”, it is indicated that the data collection and publication in relation to labour disputes will cease for the foreseeable future and that data for the missing periods will not be available at a later time. On the other hand, the Committee also recalls that the Government regularly provides statistics to the ILO on strikes, disaggregated by economic activity, via its annual questionnaire on labour statistics. In its previous comments, the Committee requested that the Government provide information in relation to the definition of “political strikes” and indicate the reasons for their exclusion from statistical coverage. The Committee requests the Government to provide clarification with respect to the indication on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) website that data collection and publication regarding labour disputes will cease for the foreseeable future. In addition, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information regarding the definition of “political strikes” and indicate the reasons for their exclusion from statistical coverage.

Article 9 of the Convention. Cost-sharing for pharmaceutical products. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to reduce cost sharing for pharmaceutical products outside the hospital for victims of occupational accidents. The Committee notes, as stated by the Government in its report, that prescription charges and the costs of dental treatment outside the hospital continue to be borne by recipients of industrial injuries benefits on the same basis as they are borne by people receiving other state benefits. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that assistance may be available, for example, in case of receipt of qualifying income-related benefits or in case of specified conditions related to age or health. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the Committee takes due note that all Health Service prescriptions dispensed outside the hospital are free of charge for everyone. Recalling that, in accordance with Article 9 of the Convention, the cost of medical aid, surgical and pharmaceutical aid shall be provided free of charge, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full application of Article 9 of the Convention with respect to the provision of pharmaceutical products outside the hospital to all persons protected in case of occupational injury.

The Committee has been informed that, based on the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM tripartite working group), the Governing Body has decided that member States for which Workmen’s Compensation (Accidents) Convention, 1925 (No. 17) is in force should be encouraged to ratify the more recent Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121), or to accept Part VI of Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) (see GB.328/LILS/2/1). The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up the Governing Body’s decision at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the SRM tripartite working group and to consider ratifying Convention No 121 or accepting Part VI of Convention No. 102 as the most up-to-date instruments in this subject area.

The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) received on 26 October 2017.

Statistics on migration flows. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to continue taking steps to collect and make available statistics on labour migration that are disaggregated by sex, and possibly other factors such as origin and age as well as sector of employment and occupation, and to indicate how these statistics reflect any changes in policies and legislation regarding the employment of migrant workers. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the users’ consultation carried out in November–December 2016 jointly by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) on international migration statistics outputs. It notes from the summary of responses to the consultation that recurring themes across the different outputs included requests for occupation or employment breakdowns. Concerning the labour market data, there were suggestions to provide better explanation of these estimates to alleviate misreporting and that more detailed country of birth breakdowns and more information on the characteristics of international migrants in the labour market would be considered useful. The Committee welcomes the information provided and asks the Government to provide information on any follow-up given to the suggestions emanating from the consultation carried out by the Office for National Statistics, the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and on the latest statistics on labour migration disaggregated by sex and detailed as regards country of origin and age as well as sector of employment and occupation. Please also indicate how these statistics reflect any changes in policies and legislation regarding the employment of migrant workers.

Articles 2 and 7 of the Convention. Services and information to migrant workers. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments on the Government’s cooperation with other States regarding services and assistance provided to migrant workers, including the provision of accurate information on the migration process and rights and obligations of migrant workers, the Government indicates that it secured funding, under the European Union’s Undeclared Work Platform project, for two Bulgarian labour inspectors to work with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA), in addition to a three-month secondment of a Romanian labour inspector to the GLAA to support operations in relation to exploited Romanian workers. The Government adds that it also works and exchanges information with other EU labour inspectorates. The Government also indicates that there is a lot of guidance available to migrants with regard to the processing of applications, including visas, asylum and settlement requests, as well as employment-related information. The Committee also notes the concerns of the TUC as regards the low number of advisers of the European Employment Services Network (EURES) to support EU migrant workers to find work, the lack of engagement of the Government with trade unions as regards information of migrant workers on the labour market and their rights at work, resulting in a majority of EU migrants working below their qualification level and, in some cases, exploitation. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. Further, the Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on its cooperation with other States regarding services rendered to migrant workers, including information on their rights at work.

Article 3. Misleading propaganda. Stressing the importance of anti-racism and anti-xenophobic measures in order to combat misleading propaganda against both immigration and emigration, the Committee requested the Government, in its previous comment, to provide information on the measures taken to prevent and combat prejudices and stereotyping regarding immigrants in an effective manner. The Government, while recognizing that there is room for improvement, indicates that it is committed to combatting hate crimes and that its legislation contains specific offences for racially and religiously aggravated activity and offences of the stirring up of hatred on the grounds of race, religion and sexual orientation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it funds the True Vision web-based hate crime reporting portal, which includes provisions for specific faith and migrant communities. It also supports local third-party reporting centers in migrant communities, such as the Polish Social and Cultural Association (POSK), to encourage reporting and provide support to victims. The Committee notes also the observations of the TUC reiterating its concerns that the Government’s policies and rhetoric around immigration continue to encourage xenophobic sentiments that are stocking social tensions, including in the context of the EU referendum and its aftermath. According to the TUC, the Immigration Act (2016) contains provisions that are likely to increase discrimination against migrant and black and minority ethnic (BME) workers, such as the requirement, for workers facing customers in the public service, to speak an ‘adequate’ level of English which is not defined objectively. The TUC condemns the sharp increase in xenophobic attacks since June 2016 and regrets that the Government did not engage with trade unions to address these issues. In this regard, the Committee wishes to refer to its comments under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), mentioning the TUC’s concerns that the Immigration Act 2016 made undocumented working a criminal offence, thus classifying the wages of undocumented workers as the proceed of crime, and prohibiting undocumented workers to claim rights at work by fear of being arrested and deported. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect as well as any information on the measures adopted, in cooperation with the social partners, to prevent and combat prejudice and stereotyping regarding migrant workers and to provide detailed information on the results obtained.

Article 6. Equality of treatment. Foreign domestic workers. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to continue to monitor the effective enforcement of the legislation concerning the employment rights of foreign domestic workers, including any difficulties to effectively assert their rights before the employment tribunals and in other complaints procedures; and to provide information on the number and nature of complaints brought by foreign domestic workers regarding non-respect of rights relating to the matters set out in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention, and their outcome. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, recognizing that migrant workers can be particularly vulnerable to labour exploitation, the Immigration Act 2016 established the position of Director of Labour Market Enforcement (LME), who was appointed on 1 January 2017, in order to make a coherent assessment of the extent of labour market exploitation, identify routes to tackle exploitation and harness the strength of the three main enforcement bodies in this field, i.e. the GLAA, the HMRC’s National Minimum Wage/Living Wage team, and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate which monitors employment agencies. The Committee notes the information contained in the executive summary of the Labour Market Enforcement Strategy 2018/19 published in May 2018 which recognizes that the lack of awareness of employment rights and the fear of reprisal by employers inevitably act to inhibit full reporting by workers and indicates that there is an estimated 10,000 to 13,000 potential victims of modern slavery in the United Kingdom (covering sexual exploitation and domestic servitude in addition to labour exploitation). The Director of LME also indicates that the numbers might even be higher and that there was an increase in the volume of identified victims from 2017 to 2018. In its report, the Government adds that, under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, domestic workers found to be the victims of modern slavery can be granted an extension of stay and those suspected of being such victims are protected against enforcement action. From April 2016, the Government has removed the conditions which tied a worker to a specific employer, allowing them to change employer within the six month validity of their visa, a provision also extended to domestic workers employed in diplomatic households; and increased the period of leave which can be granted to an overseas domestic worker victim of slavery or trafficking from six months to two years (in addition to the discretionary leave available to all victims of human trafficking or modern slavery). While indicating that it does not monitor the nationality of Employment Tribunal claimants and cannot therefore provide information on their numbers and the nature and outcome of complaints, it underlines that migrant workers, including foreign domestic workers, are entitled to the same employment rights and redress available to all workers. The Committee also notes the TUC’s observations that foreign domestic workers who have been in the country more than six months are only able to leave their employer if they have a positive result from the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) that they are the victims of trafficking. Workers whose abuse is not deemed to constitute trafficking by the NRM are forced to stay with abusive employers or lose their immigration status. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the strategy adopted by the Director of Labour Market Enforcement in order to prevent and combat migrant workers’ exploitation and its results. It also asks the Government to indicate the specific conditions under which migrant domestic workers can change employer and the difficulties encountered by the NRM to identify migrant workers victims of abusive conditions of work.

Article 6(1)(b). Equality of treatment. Social security. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 and the National Health Service Act 2006, including any regulations adopted setting out which temporary migrant workers will be required to pay a health surcharge (to use secondary health services, including hospital care), the level of the surcharge and the health services to which they apply. It also requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to address discrimination against migrant workers on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity in practice with respect to access to health services. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following the adoption of the Immigration Act of 2014, the Home Office introduced, on 6 April 2015, a requirement that most temporary, non-European Economic Area (EEA) migrants who make an application to come to the country for more than six months, or extend their stay, pay an immigration health surcharge towards the National Health Service (NHS). According to information provided on the Government’s website, the surcharge is now set at £300 per year for a student or Tier 5 (Youth Mobility Scheme) visa and £400 per year for all other visa and immigration applications. The NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2015, amended in 2017, provide for exemptions for certain types of treatment as well as for certain categories of persons among which victims and suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking (including domestic workers). The Government explains that the surcharge aims to ensure that all temporary migrants make a contribution to the cost of healthcare in the country but that the amount of the surcharge is significantly below the average per capita cost to the NHS of treating temporary migrants. It adds that urgent or immediately necessary care – which includes all maternity care – will always be provided without delay even if the surcharge payment has not yet been made. It also emphasizes that guidance on how to assess if patients are eligible for an exemption (i.e. free NHS care) stresses the need to avoid any kind of discrimination. The Committee also notes the TUC’s observations that the health surcharge is not justified financially and has a significant social cost. According to the TUC, its imposition constitutes a discriminatory barrier to healthcare for non-EEA citizens and impacts on those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act (2010), with compounded effect on BME groups. It expresses serious concerns that document checks required for healthcare turn health professionals into immigration officials. The Committee asks the Government to continue: (i) to provide information on the practical application of the relevant provisions regarding access to health services by migrant workers and the measures taken to evaluate their impact on such access in practice; and (ii) to indicate the specific measures taken to prevent and combat, in practice, discrimination against migrant workers on the basis of gender, race or ethnicity with respect to access to health services.

Enforcement. In its previous comment, the Committee highlighted that high fees to file discrimination claims may constitute an obstacle to the effective enforcement of the equal treatment principle embedded in the Convention and requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that migrant workers can effectively assert their rights before the courts in practice, as well as statistics. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Supreme Court found employment tribunals fees unlawful and quashed the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013. The Committee asks the Government to provide statistics on the nature and number of complaints regarding discrimination filed by migrant workers before the employment tribunals and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, with respect to the matters covered in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention.

The Committee notes the observations of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), communicated with the Government’s report on 3 October 2018, as well as the Government’s response thereto.

Articles 2–5 of the Convention. Formulation and application of a policy for the promotion of paid educational leave. The Government indicates that arrangements for paid educational leave have traditionally been made under voluntary agreements between employees and employers. The Government nevertheless refers to a series of training and learning measures that aim to promote increased access to paid educational leave. The Committee recalls that, following the 2011 consultations on the “Right to Request Time to Train” scheme, the coalition Government decided to retain the scheme, but not to extend it to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Committee takes note of the report of the Institute for Employment Studies, published in October 2017, which noted that there was considerable variation across economic sectors in terms of awareness and use of the scheme, concluding that, although SMEs would have to accommodate higher set-up costs to administer and implement the scheme, the data gathered from the implementation of the current arrangements in larger organizations suggested that this could be accommodated if the scheme were extended to SMEs. The Government also reports on a series of new steps taken introducing stronger incentives to encourage employers to invest in training for staff, including the establishment of a National Retraining Scheme, which aims to provide individuals – particularly those hardest to reach – with the skills they need to respond to employers’ needs in a changing economy. In its observations, the TUC welcomes this initiative and the Government’s commitment to a social partnership approach in its development and implementation. In response to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that there has been no analysis of the direct impact of the abolishment of the Train to Gain programme on the propensity to grant paid educational leave. It adds that, following the abolition of the programme, better-targeted entitlements to learning were introduced. These are funded through the Adult Education Budget and focus particularly on young adults, persons with low skills, and unemployed people who are actively seeking work. It also indicates that a series of skills policies, including apprenticeships, promote paid educational leave provision and constitute the policy response to the vocational objectives described in (a) and (d) of Article 3 of the Convention. In this context, the Committee notes the establishment of the Institute for Apprenticeships in April 2017, to ensure the quality of apprenticeship standards and the introduction of the Apprenticeships Regulations in 2017, giving all apprentices the right to off-the-job training for 20 per cent of their working time. It also notes the introduction of the apprenticeship levy in 2017 to be charged on employers’ pay bills to raise apprenticeship quality and create long-term, sustainable investment in training. The Committee notes that, for employers that do not pay the apprenticeships levy, the Government pays 90 per cent of the cost of training and assessment for apprentices. The TUC welcomes the measures designed to boost employers’ investment in apprenticeships, but observes that low-quality apprenticeships are incentivized by the low National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates applicable to apprentices. It observes that enforcement of NMW rates is very weak, pointing to the latest government survey, which shows that nearly one fifth of apprentices are paid below the NMW rate for apprentices. Moreover, the TUC points out that fewer than five employers who failed to pay the NMW for apprentices were prosecuted between January 2016 and June 2017. The TUC calls for the apprenticeship NMW (ANMW) rate to be aligned to the youth NMW rate and to be restricted to young apprentices and other young workers who are under 21 years of age. The Committee notes the Government’s reply, according to which the ANMW is set at a rate that acknowledges the costs for employers and benefits for young people involved in the provision of apprenticeships and which does not adversely affect apprenticeship opportunities in the labour market. The Government indicates that, when the rate was introduced in 2010, it was in line with existing minimum pay levels for apprentices in England and that the Department for Education has asked the Low Pay Commission to consider the ANMW in the context of the ambitions for a world-class apprenticeship programme. Regarding the enforcement of the NMW, the Government indicates that it is carrying out targeted enforcement where a high risk of non-payment of the NMW is identified and is committed to cracking down on employers who break the NMW law. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments relating to an extension of the “Right to Request Time to Train” scheme to small and medium-sized enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged in consultation with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, including through the establishment of a National Retraining Scheme, to promote the granting of paid educational leave.

Article 2(c). Paid educational leave for the purpose of trade union education. In response to the Committee’s previous comments concerning the practical implementation of section 43 of the Employment Act 2002, the Government refers to the duty of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) to provide practical guidance on the time off that an employer should grant to a trade union official or to a trade union member under the ACAS Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities. The Government indicates that it continues to support Unionlearn, an organization of the TUC which aims to help embed a culture of learning throughout working lives, and which is funded by the Union Learning Fund (ULF). The Committee notes that every year, more than 42,000 union representatives, including union health and safety representatives and Unionlearn representatives, are trained through the TUC Education Service. The Committee requests the Government to include updated detailed information in its next report on the practical implementation of section 43 of the Employment Act, 2002, and corresponding legislation.

Article 8. Equal access of workers to paid educational leave. The Committee notes that the Government provides additional financial support to ensure that high quality apprenticeships are accessible to persons from all backgrounds, under-represented groups and those facing traditional and more recent barriers, including: young people and care leavers, people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities, women, and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. The TUC welcomes the initiatives taken, which seek to boost access to high-quality apprenticeships for specific groups. It indicates that Unionlearn is currently producing a series of apprenticeship equality and diversity guides for union representatives to encourage employers to recruit from among these groups. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the nature and impact of measures adopted or envisaged with a view to ensuring that all workers have equal access to paid educational leave.

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006). The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2014 and 2016 entered into force for the United Kingdom on 18 January 2017 and 8 January 2019, respectively. Following a second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Regulation 1.4 and the Code. Recruitment and placement. The Committee requested the Government to explain how it ensures that its legislative provisions prohibiting the use of means, mechanisms or lists intended to prevent or deter seafarers from gaining employment extend beyond trade union purposes. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, the data controller must specify the purpose for which personal data is held and any data processing must be carried out in accordance with those specified purposes. Therefore, any information a shipowner or recruitment and placement service holds on individual seafarers for the purposes of employing, recruiting or placing seafarers in employment may not be used to create lists of “blacklisted” seafarers without breaching the provisions of the Act. The Government also indicates that compliance with the Act is enforced by the Information Commissioner who can serve information notices, levy fines, etc.. Failure to comply with an information notice is a criminal offence. The Committee takes notes of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 4. Hours of work and hours of rest. Danger of fatigue. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on how it ensures that its two-watch system does not pose a danger of fatigue on seafarers, as well as to transmit copies of any relevant studies or empirical findings on this matter. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the relevant regulations enforce the international standards for hours of rest in both the MLC, 2006 and Regulation VIII/1 of the International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978, as amended (STCW). It further indicates that the Merchant Shipping Notice 1868(M) sets out the requirements for safe manning of ships, including requiring shipowners to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Maritime Coastguard Authority (MCA) that any proposed manning level is sufficient for the normal operations of the ship and any foreseeable additional demands due to circumstances. The Committee further notes the Government’s information on two studies conducted recently, which analysed the effects of watchkeeping patterns on the fatigue of seafarers. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraphs 8 and 9. Hours of work and hours of rest. On-call work. The Committee notes the Government’s information in reply to its previous comments, that Regulation 5(3) of the Merchant Shipping (Hours of Work) Regulations 2002 provides that firefighting and lifeboat drills prescribed by the Merchant Shipping (Musters, Training and Decision Support Systems) Regulations 1999(1) shall be conducted in a manner which minimizes the disturbance of rest periods and does not induce fatigue. Regulation 5(4) provides that a seafarer who is on call on board ship shall have an adequate compensatory rest period if his normal period of rest is disturbed by call outs to work. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraph 3. Entitlement to leave. Possible exceptions to the prohibition to forgo paid annual leave. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that, following tripartite consultations, there was an agreement that a seafarer should not be forced to return on leave to a home country if he or she does not wish to do so for some specific reasons such as fearing for their personal safety or no longer having family in that location. The Committee noted, in this connection, the Government’s indication that, under this agreement, seafarers may be permitted to change their repatriation destination or to extend their time on board. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the safeguards put in place, if any, to limit the seafarers’ extended time on board. The Committee notes the Government’s information that within the MLC Tripartite Working Group (TWG) it was agreed to establish the above-mentioned exceptions to the entitlement of repatriation in particular circumstances, such as those of seafarers who would need to return to a war zone to enjoy annual leave. While recognizing the importance of annual leave, it was agreed that in such circumstances the well being of the seafarers concerned would not be well-served by requiring them to return to a war zone. The MLC TWG also agreed that such cases should be considered on a case-by-case basis, as they should only be justified in such rare and exceptional circumstances. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraphs 1 and 2(a). Repatriation. Circumstances. With regard to the exception to the shipowner’s duty to provide repatriation when the seafarer confirms in writing that repatriation is not required (section 21(6) of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Minimum Requirements for Seafarers, etc.) Regulations 2014 – SI 2014/1613), the Committee requested the Government to identify any protections in place to ensure that this provision does not enable the waiver of the right to repatriation by seafarers wishing to gain or retain employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no specific protections have been put in place. This provision has been in the United Kingdom legislation since 1979 as one of the conditions in which the shipowner’s duty to repatriate ends. The Government further indicates that few cases have come to the MCA’s attention with respect to such exception. It considers that since repatriation is an entitlement for seafarers, seafarers should have the right to waive their right if they consider that to be in their best interests (for example, to extend their term at sea by one or two months in order to complete a period of sea service). In this regard, the Government indicates that MCA surveyors are alert to the risk of seafarers being put under pressure to waive their rights and would investigate if there were any sign of a pattern of such behaviour on a particular ship or in a particular company. While noting this information, the Committee recalls that the Convention does not provide that the right to repatriation ends when the circumstances provided under Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 1, are met. The only case in which this right may lapse in conformity with the Convention is contemplated under Guideline B2.5.1, paragraph 8, in the case in which the seafarers concerned do not claim that right within a reasonable period of time to be defined by national laws or regulations or collective agreements. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that any provision of national legislation which deprives seafarers of their right to repatriation is limited to the circumstances allowed by the Convention. In this regard, it requests the Government to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Repatriation. Financial security. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to Standard A2.5.2, the Government shall ensure the provision of an expeditious and effective financial security system to assist seafarers in case of their abandonment. In this regard, the Committee takes note with interest of the adoption of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Compulsory Financial Security) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018, which give effect to Standard A2.5.2. The Committee requests the Government to provide an example of the kind of documentation that is accepted or issued with respect to the financial security that must be provided by shipowners.

Regulation 4.2 and Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 5. Shipowners’ liability. Possible exclusion. The Committee notes that in reply to its previous comments, the Government clarifies that in relation to the exception to shipowners’ liability for wages following sickness or injury sustained by a seafarer where the injury occurred while the seafarer “was not at work” (section 50(11)(b) of SI 2014/1613), the term “not at work” was preferred to “in the service of the ship”, but it does not change the scope of the duty. Thus, a seafarer who is carrying out any part of her/his duties either on the ship or ashore would be covered by the national regulations. According to the Government, no other circumstances may be identified, which would be covered by the term “in the service of the ship”. Neither term would cover a seafarer undertaking recreational activities ashore or on the ship. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Regulation 4.2, Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 8 to 14, and Standard A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security. In relation to the 2014 amendments to the Code of the Convention, the Committee recalls that pursuant to Standards A4.2.1 and A4.2.2, national laws and regulations shall provide that the financial security system to assure compensation in the event of the death or long term disability of seafarers due to an occupational injury, illness or hazard meet certain minimum requirements. In this regard, the Committee takes note with interest of the adoption of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Compulsory Financial Security) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018, which give effect to Standard A4.5.1, paragraphs 8 to 14 and to Standard A4.2.2. The Committee requests the Government to provide an example of the kind of documentation that is accepted or issued with respect to the financial security that must be provided by shipowners.

Regulation 4.5 and Standard A4.5, paragraphs 3 and 6. Social security. Protection for seafarers ordinarily resident in its territory. Comparable benefits to non-resident seafarers. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to give effect to a number of requirements of the Convention related to social security. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the information previously provided on the European social security coordinating Regulations. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the relevant provisions regulating social security protection for seafarers ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom in the branches specified. It further requests the Government to specify whether: (i) social security coverage for the above-mentioned benefits extends to seafarers who reside in the United Kingdom and work on board ships flying the flag of non-EU countries and countries other than those with which reciprocal social security agreements were stipulated; and (ii) consideration has been given to providing comparable benefits to non-resident seafarers working on ships that fly its flag (Standard A4.5, paragraph 6).

Regulation 5.1.6. Marine casualties. The Committee notes that, under Regulation 8 of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012, the chief inspector must ensure a safety investigation is carried out in relation to any accident that is a “very serious marine casualty”, which are defined as those involving the total loss of the ship or loss of life, or severe pollution. In the case of “serious casualties”, the chief inspector shall carry out a preliminary assessment in order to decide whether to undertake a safety investigation. In the case of a “marine casualty”, the chief inspector may carry out a safety investigation. The Committee notes that in the latter cases the holding of an investigation is optional. It recalls that Regulation 5.1.6, paragraphs 1 and 2, provides that each Member shall hold an official inquiry into any serious marine casualty, leading not only to loss of life but also to injury that involves a ship that flies its flag. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full conformity with this requirement of the Convention.

Regulations 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. Inspections in port. Onshore seafarer complaint-handling procedures. The Committee requested the Government to provide its comments in reply to the observations of Nautilus International expressing concern with respect to the current shortage of MCA marine surveyors, as well as to provide information on the implementation of Regulation 5.2.2. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the MCA carried out two recruitment campaigns of marine surveyors in 2016 and 2018, respectively. The Committee further notes that Regulation 18 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Survey and Certification) Regulations 2013 provides that non-UK ships shall comply, inter alia, with the requirements of Regulation 5.2.2 and Standard A5.2.2 (onshore seafarer complaint-handling procedures). Maritime Guidance Note (MGN) 487(M) regulates in detail onshore complaint procedures. The Committee finally notes the Government’s indication that the MCA reports regularly to the TWG on (anonymized) complaints received and the outcomes. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Comments adopted by the CEACR: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C032 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C108 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C029 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C102 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C148 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148)

C150 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C160 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C017 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C097 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C140 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Comments adopted by the CEACR: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Display the list by:

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C032 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C108 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C111 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C029 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C081 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C102 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C148 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148)

C150 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C160 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C017 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C097 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C140 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)